News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Intel Confronts Potential ‘PR Nightmare’ With Reported Ch... by jcriddle4 on Wednesday January 03, 2018 @11:12AM (#16062171)
I would love to see some SQL Server benchmarks on this patch
Re:Intel Confronts Potential ‘PR Nightmare’ With Reported Ch... by marcolussetti on Wednesday January 03, 2018 @11:27AM (#16062318)
SQL Server license disallows publishing of the results of benchmarking (much like Oracle does)
Re:Intel Confronts Potential ‘PR Nightmare’ With Reported Ch... by dvlsg on Wednesday January 03, 2018 @12:39PM (#16063027)
Wait, really? That's kind of messed up.
Re:Intel Confronts Potential ‘PR Nightmare’ With Reported Ch... by walterbell on Wednesday January 03, 2018 @02:41PM (#16064332)
Remarkable that no throwaway HN accounts considered that a challenge.
Re:Intel Confronts Potential ‘PR Nightmare’ With Reported Ch... by chillydawg on Wednesday January 03, 2018 @11:45AM (#16062531)
Likely very similar to the postgres benchmarks. Fundamentally a RDBMS needs to sync each transaction commit to the log file on disk and that sync is always a syscall. If your DB is doing thousands tx/sec to low latency flash and you rely on that low latency, you're going to get hit.
Re:Intel Confronts Potential ‘PR Nightmare’ With Reported Ch... by anarazel on Wednesday January 03, 2018 @04:51PM (#16065563)
Note that the postgres benchmark numbers passed around (most based on my benchmarks) are readonly. For write based workloads the overhead is likely going to be much smaller in nearly all cases, there's just more independent workload. The overhead in the readonly load profiles comes near entirely from the synchronous client<->server communication, if you can avoid that for workloads (using pipelining, other batching techniques) the overhead's going to be smaller.