Date: Mon, 2 Aug 2010 10:35:44 -0400
Reply-To: oloolo <dynamicpanel@YAHOO.COM>
Sender: "SAS(r) Discussion" <SAS-L@LISTSERV.UGA.EDU>
From: oloolo <dynamicpanel@YAHOO.COM>
Subject: Re: Is 9.2 THAT much faster than 9.1.3
Art, interesting thread
In my opinion, a subjective term "Fast" would refer to several aspects of
objective comparisons between these two. I/O, numerical crunch [floating],
search and data structure built up[Int]. It would be more informative if
someone is able to do a comprehensive benchmark on each of these categories
on a machine in a relatively simple enviornment. And I think it would be
more helpful if we look at CPU time rather than actual time
On Sun, 1 Aug 2010 20:07:18 -0400, Arthur Tabachneck <art297@NETSCAPE.NET>
wrote:
>I've been meaning to ask this question for some time now thus, given that
>no one is posting today, thought this would be an excellent time to
>address the matter.
>
>For a number of years I always had to preface my comparison posts with the
>fact that I was running 9.1.3 on a 4-processor server.
>
>However, over the last couple of years, people running 9.2 in non-server
>environments, have been reporting much quicker processing times than I can
>achieve.
>
>Is 9.2 THAT much faster than 9.1.3 or am I missing something? Conversely,
>if the faster processing is due to dual processors, are dual processors
>covered by the standard work station license?
>
>I'm asking as we'll be upgrading to 9.2, soon, and I've got to decide
>whether to stick with a server environment or get a 15-non-server-user
>license and, possibly, upgrade our computers.
>
>As always, any feedback would be appriciated!
>
>Art
| 
