Tuning for PostGreSQL Database
Alexander at Leidinger.net
Mon Jul 21 05:16:17 PDT 2003
On Sun, 20 Jul 2003 14:53:33 -0700 (PDT)
Tom Samplonius <tom at sdf.com> wrote:
> Well, 5.1 is considerably less crippled by Giant than 4.8. Well,
> "crippled" is not a good description. "Impaired" is better. 5.1 SMP
> performance is less Giant impaired than 4.8. That's a good thing.
The critical parts for the desired operations are still covered by the
Giant lock (e.g. tcp stack, ata subsystem).
> > over takes 4.X in terms of speed, is the subject of great debate, but
> > many are optimistic that it will be at some point, just not at the
> > moment. 5.X, will however (and without much doubt), scale much better
> > than 4.X on multiple processor machines, though I'm not sure where
> > that stands at the moment in terms of being completed and should
> > likely be directed to current@ or questions@ instead of here. -sc
> Yes, 5.1 is better on multiple CPUs. So if 5.1 works for you, it is
> going to work faster than 4.8 on SMP.
Did you measured that, and if yes, which set of operations do you have
On -current we still have reports that 5.1 is still not as fast as 4.8
(and nobody @FreeBSD.org is surprised, as the target is to first get a
stable 5.x line and after that a fast&stable one).
Failure is not an option. It comes bundled with your Microsoft product.
http://www.Leidinger.net Alexander @ Leidinger.net
GPG fingerprint = C518 BC70 E67F 143F BE91 3365 79E2 9C60 B006 3FE7
More information about the freebsd-performance