Re: More memory, or more processors

>>>>> "Clem" == Clem Akins <clem@informix.com> writes: Clem> Clem> In general, databases store and present information, Clem> and benefit more from memory than CPU. Sorta... you need CPU's to drive your I/O. Your CPUVP's are doing the kaio. If you aren't driving the drives (:-)) then adding more memory is really not the answer. Furthermore, b-trees grow log(n) for each depth so throwing more memory, unless you're throwing exponential memory, isn't going to help. What *I* would do is: 1) run system metric collection: sar 2) coupled with RDBMS metric collection One of the very nice things about DSA is the SMI code. Take advantage of it. In your application, are you driving the disks as hard as they'll go? A run-o-mill scsi drive will probably give you about 70-90 IOPS with 4K I/O's. Big reads/writes and you'll get better throughput... but it really "depends" on your hardware and application. If you don't know what the limits are, contact your h/w vendor. So, are you driving those drives? :-) Other things to think about: order by/group by == more CPU usage no stored procedures? == more CPU usage on and on... this P&T stuff is complicated ain't it? -- Pablo Sanchez | Ph # (650) 933.3812 Fax # (650) 933.2821 pablo@sgi.com | Pg # (800) 930.5635 -or- pablo_p@pager.sgi.com ============= Please include "not spam" in your "Subject: " line ============== I am accountable for my actions. http://reality.sgi.com/pablo [ /Sybase_FAQ ]