---- Original message ---- >Date: Thu, 3 Feb 2011 18:56:34 +0100 >From: pgsql-performance-ow...@postgresql.org (on behalf of Aljoša Mohorović ><aljosa.mohoro...@gmail.com>) >Subject: Re: [PERFORM] getting the most of out multi-core systems for repeated >complex SELECT statements >To: gnuo...@rcn.com >Cc: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org > >On Thu, Feb 3, 2011 at 4:57 PM, <gnuo...@rcn.com> wrote: >> Time for my pet meme to wiggle out of its hole (next to Phil's, and a day >> later). For PG to prosper in the future, it has to embrace the >> multi-core/processor/SSD machine at the query level. It has to. And it has >> to because the Big Boys already do so, to some extent, and they've realized >> that the BCNF schema on such machines is supremely efficient. >> PG/MySql/OSEngineOfChoice will get left behind simply because the efficiency >> offered will be worth the price. > >this kind of view on what postgres community has to do can only be >true if postgres has no intention to support "cloud environments" or >any kind of hardware virtualization. >while i'm sure targeting specific hardware features can greatly >improve postgres performance it should be an option not a requirement.
Being an option is just fine. It's not there now. Asserting that the cloud meme, based on lowest cost marginal hardware, should dictate a database engine is putting the cart before the horse. >forcing users to have specific hardware is basically telling users >that you can forget about using postgres in amazon/rackspace cloud >environments (or any similar environment). Just not on cheap clouds, if they want maximal performance from the engine using BCNF schemas. Replicating COBOL/VSAM/flatfile applications in any relational database engine is merely deluding oneself. >i'm sure that a large part of postgres community doesn't care about >"cloud environments" (although this is only my personal impression) >but if plan is to disable postgres usage in such environments you are >basically loosing a large part of developers/companies targeting >global internet consumers with their online products. >cloud environments are currently the best platform for internet >oriented developers/companies to start a new project or even to >migrate from custom hardware/dedicated data center. > >> Much as it pains me to say it, but the MicroSoft approach to software: write >> to the next generation processor and force users to upgrade, will be the >> winning strategy for database engines. There's just way too much to gain. > >it can arguably be said that because of this approach microsoft is >losing ground in most of their businesses/strategies. Not really. MicroSoft is losing ground for the same reason all other client/standalone applications are: such applications don't run any better on multi-core/processor machines. Add in the netbook/phone devices, and that they can't seem to make a version of windows that's markedly better than XP. Arguably MicroSoft is failing *because Office no longer requires* the next generation hardware to run right. Hmm? Linux prospers because it's a server OS, largely. Desktop may, or may not, remain relevant. Linux does make good use of such machines. MicroSoft applications? Not so much. > >Aljosa Mohorovic > >-- >Sent via pgsql-performance mailing list (pgsql-performance@postgresql.org) >To make changes to your subscription: >http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-performance -- Sent via pgsql-performance mailing list (pgsql-performance@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-performance
