Greg Stark wrote:
> William Yu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Rob Sell wrote:
> > > Not being one to hijack threads, but I haven't heard of this performance hit
> > > when using HT, I have what should all rights be a pretty fast server, dual
> > > 2.4 Xeons with HT 205gb raid 5 array, 1 gig of memory. And it is only 50% as
> > > fast as my old server which was a dual AMD MP 1400's with a 45gb raid 5
> > > array and 1gb of ram.
> > Not to get into a big Intel vs AMD argument but 50% sounds about right. Let's
> > first assume that the QS rating for the MP1400 is relatively accurate and
> > convert that to a 1.4GHz Xeon. 2.4/1.4 = +71%. Since processor performance
> > does not increase linearly with clockspeed, 50% is in line with expectations.
> Hm. You've read "50% as fast" as "50% faster".
> I wonder which the original poster intended.
Hyper-threading makes 2 cpus be 4 cpu's, but the 4 cpu's are each only
70% as fast, so HT is taking 2x cpus and making it 4x0.70 cpu's, which
gives 2.80 cpu's, and you get that only if you are hammering all four
cpu's with a full load. Imagine ifd get two cpu-bound processes on the
first die (first 2 cpu's of 4) and the other CPU die is idle, and you
can see that HT isn't all that useful unless you are sure to keep all 4
Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us
[EMAIL PROTECTED] | (610) 359-1001
+ If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road
+ Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073
---------------------------(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