| Rick Smith 2007-10-13, 7:55 am |
|
"Robert" <no@e.mail> wrote in message
news:vp80h3tni3fo63b6e427g7qu7n1r4d3sfv@
4ax.com...
[snip]
> I've seen fully normalized tables at the most profitable company in the US
(ESRX). SQL
> statements routinely joined 10-15 tables, and subselects were five layers
deep.
> Surprisingly, despite 500 line SQL statements, batch jobs ran FASTER than
equivalent
> legacy code. The reason was simple: parallel processing. Cobol programs
run on a single
> CPU (with the rare exception of those that spawn threads, as I
demonstrated here); SQL
> runs on many CPUs.
This may be only tangentially related; but I just found out
that my new motherboard has a dual-core processor.
A COBOL program I run regularly seemed to be much
slower. Timed tests showed about a fifty percent drop in
program execution speed for a single COBOL program
and a twenty percent drop for two COBOL programs,
compared with the previous single-core CPU. While the
CPU has about the same clock frequency (2600MHz vs.
2.4GHz), each core seems to run at about half the single
core speed.
Thus, it appears that "multi-core" may not be equivalent
to "many CPUs", while I thought it should be equivalent.
|