| From: | Shaun Thomas <sthomas(at)peak6(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Kevin Grittner <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov> |
| Cc: | <pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Claire Chang <yenhsiac(at)yahoo(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: Postgres 8.4 memory related parameters |
| Date: | 2011-08-04 21:58:03 |
| Message-ID: | 4E3B15EB.1020603@peak6.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-performance |
On 08/04/2011 04:54 PM, Kevin Grittner wrote:
>> it peaked at 2x physical cores, where it ended up being 60%
>> faster than true cores.
>
> Not sure I understand the terminology here -- "physical cores" is
> counting HT or not?
No. So with a dual X5675, that's 12 cores. My numbers peaked at
24-concurrency. At that concurrency, HT was 60% faster than non-HT.
Sorry if I mixed my terminology. :)
--
Shaun Thomas
OptionsHouse | 141 W. Jackson Blvd. | Suite 800 | Chicago IL, 60604
312-676-8870
sthomas(at)peak6(dot)com
______________________________________________
See http://www.peak6.com/email_disclaimer.php
for terms and conditions related to this email
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Nicholson, Brad (Toronto, ON, CA) | 2011-08-04 22:00:42 | Re: Suspected Postgres Datacorruption |
| Previous Message | Kevin Grittner | 2011-08-04 21:54:12 | Re: Postgres 8.4 memory related parameters |