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.
regards, tom lane