On Mon, 2007-11-26 at 17:37 -0600, Wes wrote: > On 11/13/07 10:02 AM, "Scott Ribe" <scott_ribe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > What you're referring to must be that the kernel was essentially > > single-threaded, with a single "kernel-funnel" lock. (Because the OS > > certainly supported threads, and it was certainly possible to write > > highly-threaded applications, and I don't know of any performance problems > > with threaded applications.) > > > > This has been getting progressively better, with each release adding more > > in-kernel concurrency. Which means that 10.5 probably obsoletes all prior > > postgres benchmarks on OS X. > > While I've never seen this documented anywhere, it empirically looks like > 10.5 also (finally) adds CPU affinity to better utilize instruction caching. > On a dual CPU system under 10.4, one CPU bound process would use two CPU's > at 50%. Under 10.5 it uses one CPU at 100%. > > I never saw any resolution to this thread - were the original tests on the > Opteron and OS X identical, or were they two different workloads? ---- resolution? http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-general/2007-11/msg00946.php conclusion? Mac was still pretty slow in comparison Craig ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 4: Have you searched our list archives? http://archives.postgresql.org/
