--- In firebird-support@yahoogroups.com, "Simon Carter"
<simon.carter@t...> wrote:

> > -----Original Message-----
> > As a side note - even "real databa$e $erver$" are CPU hungry. Just
> > because you pay lot$ of dollar$ for MS-SQL, Oracle, or DB2 does

not mean

> > your code will use less CPU.
>
> Firebird is a real RDBMS ;-)
>

I know that but definition and history is irrelevant when faced with
numbers to explain.

> >
> > RDBMS are, by definition, CPU hogs.
>
> I would hazard a guess that 99% of CPUs in the world are under utilized,
> including (in my experience at two large web hosting companies) most web
> based servers. IMO its not a bad thing that a CPU is hitting 99 - 100%
> utilization (with the exception of power consumption) and any user

that has

> a copy of M$ Office will notice that 100% CPU is used by Excel, Word

etc.

>
> I would have thought the thread priority of an application/server

process is

> more of an issue, to ensure one process doesn't unnecessarily block

another

> processes from getting a fire slice of the CPU.
>

I am the only person using FB. In fact, I "forced" the system admin to
install it for my usage. So, 3 scripts running eats up 3 full CPUs'
processing capabilities. If database servers MUST run at that power, I
am then faced to answer the question "why isn't processes by mysql
user (mysql processes) or postgres user doing the same?" Unable to
explain means change a database engine.

High CPU usage matters when a total of 100 processes or scripts are
running at the same time by various users and people are complaining
that their scripts took longer to run after Maurice and his Firebird
comes into picture.

Most of the users on the system have scripts which takes weeks to run.
So a 10% decline in performance can mean days. Currently I am running
a script that should be completed just in time for Chistmas.

Cheers
Maurice