
> Zeugswetter Andreas SEV <ZeugswetterA@wien.spardat.at> writes:
> > This new test case is not big enough to show cache memory 
> contention,
> > and is thus faster with the new code.
> 
> Cache memory contention?  I don't think so.  Take a look at the CPU
> versus elapsed times in Tatsuo's prior report on the 2Gb case.
> I'm not sure yet what's going on, but it's clear that the 
> bottleneck is
> I/O operations not processor/memory speed.

Yes, I doubt that the new test shows the same bottleneck situation.
He did not tell us the IO versus CPU time on the recent 250 Mb test.
I suspect, that the CPU time now has a higher percentage on total time.

Andreas

Tue, 2 Nov 1999 17:08:14 +0100 
Zeugswetter Andreas SEV <ZeugswetterA@wien.spardat.at>
AW: AW: [HACKERS] sort on huge table 