> -----Original Message----- > From: pgsql-general-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx > [mailto:pgsql-general-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx]On Behalf Of Brent Wood > Sent: Monday, April 25, 2005 8:20 PM > To: Uwe C. Schroeder > Cc: pgsql-general@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx > Subject: Re: UltraSPARC versus AMD > > > > > On Sat, 23 Apr 2005, Uwe C. Schroeder wrote: > > > Well, you overlook one thing there. SUN has always has a > really good I/O > > performance - something far from negligible for a database > application. Am i dreaming?, Solaris really good I/O performance? Have your heard of slowlaris? May be you mean hardware performance, combined with a great OS (BSD or Linux) I had to "upgrade" many Sunfire 280 (running slowlaris [8|9]) to BSD because of poor DB performance, after the upgrade, all run flawlessly. I only wish a had made this switch before Just my $0.02 > > A lot of the PC systems lack that kind of I/O thruput. > > Just compare a simple P4 with ATAPI drives to the same P4 > with 320 SCSI drives > > - the speed difference, particularly using any *nix, is surprisingly > > significant and easily visible with the bare eye. We are talking about server or pc?, we run postgres on several HP dl380 (5i SCSI controller) with great performance > > There is a reason why a lot of the financial/insurance > institutions (having a > > lot of transactions in their DB applications) use either > IBM mainframes or > > SUN E10k's :-) > > Personally I think a weaker processor with top of the line > I/O will perform > > better for DB apps than the fastest processor with crappy I/O. > > > > i guess the "my $0.02" is in order here :-) > > > i totally agree with this --- Miguel ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 9: the planner will ignore your desire to choose an index scan if your joining column's datatypes do not match
