On Fri, Sep 2, 2016 at 10:32:46AM -0700, Andres Freund wrote: > On 2016-09-02 11:10:35 -0600, Scott Marlowe wrote: > > On Fri, Sep 2, 2016 at 4:49 AM, dandl <david@xxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > Re this talk given by Michael Stonebraker: > > > > > > http://slideshot.epfl.ch/play/suri_stonebraker > > > > > > > > > > > > He makes the claim that in a modern ‘big iron’ RDBMS such as Oracle, DB2, MS > > > SQL Server, Postgres, given enough memory that the entire database lives in > > > cache, the server will spend 96% of its memory cycles on unproductive > > > overhead. This includes buffer management, locking, latching (thread/CPU > > > conflicts) and recovery (including log file reads and writes). > > I think those numbers are overblown, and more PR than reality. > > But there certainly are some things that can be made more efficient if > you don't care about durability and replication. Agreed. Stonebraker measured Shore DBMS, which is an academic database: http://research.cs.wisc.edu/shore/ If he had measured a production-quality database that had been optimized like Postgres, I would take more stock of his "overhead" numbers. -- Bruce Momjian <bruce@xxxxxxxxxx> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com + As you are, so once was I. As I am, so you will be. + + Ancient Roman grave inscription + -- Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
