X-Original-To: pgsql-general-postgresql.org@localhost.postgresql.org Received: from localhost (unknown [200.46.204.144]) by svr1.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3C8503A512E for ; Sun, 23 Jan 2005 04:25:48 +0000 (GMT) Received: from svr1.postgresql.org ([200.46.204.71]) by localhost (av.hub.org [200.46.204.144]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 53066-10 for ; Sun, 23 Jan 2005 04:25:36 +0000 (GMT) Received: from lakermmtao04.cox.net (lakermmtao04.cox.net [68.230.240.35]) by svr1.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4EC3E3A5102 for ; Sun, 23 Jan 2005 04:25:35 +0000 (GMT) Received: from travis ([68.109.221.28]) by lakermmtao04.cox.net (InterMail vM.6.01.04.00 201-2131-117-20041022) with SMTP id <20050123042532.BRQD22354.lakermmtao04.cox.net@travis> for ; Sat, 22 Jan 2005 23:25:32 -0500 Message-ID: <000901c50103$946d2e00$6501a8c0@travis> From: "Quinton Lawson" To: References: <20050123034709.84430.qmail@web30703.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Subject: Re: Windows 2000 Slower Than Windows XP (SOLVED) Date: Sat, 22 Jan 2005 22:25:30 -0600 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0006_01C500D1.47DF0450" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.2527 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.2527 X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at hub.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=2.842 tagged_above=0 required=5 tests=AWL, DNS_FROM_RFC_ABUSE, DNS_FROM_RFC_POST, HTML_40_50, HTML_MESSAGE X-Spam-Level: ** X-Archive-Number: 200501/1231 X-Sequence-Number: 72180 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0006_01C500D1.47DF0450 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Thank you Joe for leading me in the right direction. I found the = solution to the problem. It wasn't a hardware related problem or an OLE = DB driver problem... =20 By default, Windows XP installs the QoS Packet Scheduler service. It is = not installed by default on Windows 2000. After I installed QoS Packet = Scheduler on the Windows 2000 machine, the latency problem vanished. I am a happy PostgreSQL user now :) -qlawson ----- Original Message -----=20 From: Joe Audette=20 To: pgsql-general@postgresql.org=20 Sent: Saturday, January 22, 2005 9:47 PM Subject: Re: [GENERAL] Windows 2000 Slower Than Windows XP Sounds like it could be a networking issue to me. Perhaps the xp machine is resolving the db server name more efficiently. do both the xp machine and the win2k machine 1 have comparable network cards? 2 on the same subnet as each other and the db? 3 using the same dns or wins server? you could try putting an entry in the hosts file on the slow machine to resolve the name of the db machine and see if that helps. I'm no expert on Postgre SQL so maybe there is a driver difference or something that others on the list would know better. Hope that helps, Joe --- Quinton Lawson wrote: > I have been having quite a time trying to figure > this one out. I have installed PostgreSQL OLE DB > drivers (ver 1.0.0.15) on two separate machines.=20 > The only difference between the two machines is the > OS, 2000 Pro (SP4) and XP Pro (SP2) and both are > fully updated from fresh installs. The PostgreSQL > 8.0 server is running on another Windows XP Pro > machine (SP2, fully updated). >=20 > I am performing a Select query like this:=20 > SELECT column1, column2, column3 FROM table1 WHERE > column4 =3D 'value1' AND column5 =3D'value2' ORDER BY > column1, column2; >=20 > Connection String: > Provider=3DPostgreSQL.1;Password=3D"";User > ID=3Dclient1;Data Source=3Dserver;Location=3DMedia > Database;Extended Properties=3D"" >=20 > The results take approximately 2 seconds on the XP > machine and 8 seconds on the 2000 machine. >=20 > Explain Analyze yields nearly identical times (45ms) > between the two. >=20 > Any ideas why this is occuring? >=20 > Thank You, > qlawson =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D joe_audette@yahoo.com http://www.joeaudette.com http://www.mojoportal.com __________________________________=20 Do you Yahoo!?=20 Read only the mail you want - Yahoo! Mail SpamGuard.=20 http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail=20 ---------------------------(end of = broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 6: Have you searched our list archives? http://archives.postgresql.org ------=_NextPart_000_0006_01C500D1.47DF0450 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Thank you Joe for leading me in the = right=20 direction.  I found the solution to the problem.  It wasn't a = hardware=20 related problem or an OLE DB driver problem... 
 
By default, Windows XP installs the QoS = Packet=20 Scheduler service.  It is not installed by default on Windows = 2000. =20 After I installed QoS Packet Scheduler on the Windows 2000 machine, the = latency=20 problem vanished.
 
I am a happy PostgreSQL user now = :)
 
-qlawson
 
----- Original Message -----
From:=20 Joe=20 Audette
Sent: Saturday, January 22, = 2005 9:47=20 PM
Subject: Re: [GENERAL] Windows = 2000=20 Slower Than Windows XP

Sounds like it could be a networking issue to = me.
Perhaps=20 the xp machine is resolving the db server name
more = efficiently.
do both=20 the xp machine and the win2k machine
1 have comparable network = cards?
2=20 on the same subnet as each other and the db?
3 using the same dns = or wins=20 server?

you could try putting an entry in the hosts file = on
the slow=20 machine to resolve the name of the db machine
and see if that=20 helps.

I'm no expert on Postgre SQL so maybe there is = a
driver=20 difference or something that others on the list
would know=20 better.

Hope that helps,

Joe


--- Quinton = Lawson=20 <qlawson@adelphia.net>=20 wrote:

> I have been having quite a time trying to = figure
>=20 this one out.  I have installed PostgreSQL OLE DB
> drivers = (ver=20 1.0.0.15) on two separate machines.
> The only difference = between the=20 two machines is the
> OS, 2000 Pro (SP4) and XP Pro (SP2) and = both=20 are
> fully updated from fresh installs.  The = PostgreSQL
>=20 8.0 server is running on another Windows XP Pro
> machine (SP2, = fully=20 updated).
>
> I am performing a Select query like this: =
>=20 SELECT column1, column2, column3 FROM table1 WHERE
> column4 =3D = 'value1'=20 AND column5 =3D'value2' ORDER BY
> column1, column2;
> =
>=20 Connection String:
> = Provider=3DPostgreSQL.1;Password=3D"";User
>=20 ID=3Dclient1;Data Source=3Dserver;Location=3DMedia
> = Database;Extended=20 Properties=3D""
>
> The results take approximately 2 = seconds on the=20 XP
> machine and 8 seconds on the 2000 machine.
>
> = Explain=20 Analyze yields nearly identical times (45ms)
> between the = two.
>=20
> Any ideas why this is occuring?
>
> Thank = You,
>=20 qlawson


=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
joe_audette@yahoo.com
http://www.joeaudette.com
http://www.mojoportal.com

<= BR>
__________________________________=20
Do you Yahoo!?
Read only the mail you want - Yahoo! Mail = SpamGuard.=20
http://promotions.yahoo.com= /new_mail=20

---------------------------(end of=20 broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 6: Have you searched our = list=20 = archives?

         &n= bsp;    =20 http://archives.postgresql.org ------=_NextPart_000_0006_01C500D1.47DF0450--