On 08/04/2011 03:38 PM, Kevin Grittner wrote:
You're probably going to get better performance by setting that to 2 to 3 times the number of actual cores (don't county hyperthreading for this purpose), and using a connection pooler to funnel the 600 user connections down to a smaller number of database connections.
Your note about Hyperthreading *used* to be true. I'm not sure exactly what they did to the Intel nehalem cores, but hyperthreading actually seems to be much better now. It's not a true multiplier, but our pgbench scores were 40% to 60% higher with HT enabled up to at least 5x the number of cores.
I was honestly shocked at those results, but they were consistent across multiple machines from two separate vendors.
-- Shaun Thomas OptionsHouse | 141 W. Jackson Blvd. | Suite 800 | Chicago IL, 60604 312-676-8870 stho...@peak6.com ______________________________________________ See http://www.peak6.com/email_disclaimer.php for terms and conditions related to this email -- Sent via pgsql-performance mailing list (pgsql-performance@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-performance
