From qlawson@adelphia.net Sat Jun 6 10:03:27 2026 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 6B0923A501F for ; Sun, 23 Jan 2005 01:58:11 +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 37673-02 for ; Sun, 23 Jan 2005 01:57:58 +0000 (GMT) Received: from lakermmtao11.cox.net (lakermmtao11.cox.net [68.230.240.28]) by svr1.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3D94F3A3F64 for ; Sun, 23 Jan 2005 01:58:00 +0000 (GMT) Received: from travis ([68.109.221.28]) by lakermmtao11.cox.net (InterMail vM.6.01.04.00 201-2131-117-20041022) with SMTP id <20050123015800.LVBT1657.lakermmtao11.cox.net@travis> for ; Sat, 22 Jan 2005 20:58:00 -0500 Message-ID: <000801c500ee$f775dc00$6501a8c0@travis> From: "Quinton Lawson" To: Subject: Windows 2000 Slower Than Windows XP Date: Sat, 22 Jan 2005 19:57:50 -0600 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0005_01C500BC.A7407C40" 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=3.846 tagged_above=0 required=5 tests=AWL, DNS_FROM_RFC_ABUSE, DNS_FROM_RFC_POST, HTML_50_60, HTML_MESSAGE X-Spam-Level: *** X-Archive-Number: 200501/1226 X-Sequence-Number: 72175 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0005_01C500BC.A7407C40 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable 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. 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). 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; Connection String: Provider=3DPostgreSQL.1;Password=3D"";User ID=3Dclient1;Data = Source=3Dserver;Location=3DMedia Database;Extended Properties=3D"" The results take approximately 2 seconds on the XP machine and 8 seconds = on the 2000 machine. Explain Analyze yields nearly identical times (45ms) between the two. Any ideas why this is occuring? Thank You, qlawson ------=_NextPart_000_0005_01C500BC.A7407C40 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

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 = are fully=20 updated from fresh installs. The PostgreSQL 8.0 server is running = on=20 another Windows XP Pro machine (SP2, fully updated).

I am performing a Select query like=20 this:

SELECT column1, column2, = column3 FROM table1=20 WHERE column4 =3D 'value1' AND column5 =3D'value2' ORDER BY column1,=20 column2;

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=20 the XP machine and 8 seconds on the 2000 machine.

Explain Analyze yields nearly = identical times=20 (45ms) between the two.

Any ideas why this is = occuring?

Thank You,

qlawson

------=_NextPart_000_0005_01C500BC.A7407C40-- From joe_audette@yahoo.com Sat Jun 6 10:03:27 2026 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 3F73A3A50C9 for ; Sun, 23 Jan 2005 03:47:21 +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 48202-04 for ; Sun, 23 Jan 2005 03:47:06 +0000 (GMT) Received: from web30703.mail.mud.yahoo.com (web30703.mail.mud.yahoo.com [68.142.200.136]) by svr1.postgresql.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 16E043A5020 for ; Sun, 23 Jan 2005 03:47:09 +0000 (GMT) Received: (qmail 84432 invoked by uid 60001); 23 Jan 2005 03:47:09 -0000 Comment: DomainKeys? See http://antispam.yahoo.com/domainkeys DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=s1024; d=yahoo.com; b=Vho/e/He6XoU+GJLqsvXEzb9nct/9B1OHWuOUoK39Xx+HrVRGaFRvI3fbx/Pep9yN2ebboJjEef7on3yyBxtRbn/cLk1P7iFnHFQISn5BESx/SdGoXq1zDGd9sCiNG/Dy9oebXKpoJaK352BmXY/n9w+rd8sugS/kHaB3XZGEHo= ; Message-ID: <20050123034709.84430.qmail@web30703.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Received: from [68.52.187.232] by web30703.mail.mud.yahoo.com via HTTP; Sat, 22 Jan 2005 19:47:09 PST Date: Sat, 22 Jan 2005 19:47:09 -0800 (PST) From: Joe Audette Subject: Re: Windows 2000 Slower Than Windows XP To: pgsql-general@postgresql.org In-Reply-To: <000801c500ee$f775dc00$6501a8c0@travis> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at hub.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=2.548 tagged_above=0 required=5 tests=DNS_FROM_RFC_ABUSE, FORGED_YAHOO_RCVD X-Spam-Level: ** X-Archive-Number: 200501/1230 X-Sequence-Number: 72179 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. > 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). > > I am performing a Select query like this: > SELECT column1, column2, column3 FROM table1 WHERE > column4 = 'value1' AND column5 ='value2' ORDER BY > column1, column2; > > Connection String: > Provider=PostgreSQL.1;Password="";User > ID=client1;Data Source=server;Location=Media > Database;Extended Properties="" > > The results take approximately 2 seconds on the XP > machine and 8 seconds on the 2000 machine. > > Explain Analyze yields nearly identical times (45ms) > between the two. > > Any ideas why this is occuring? > > Thank You, > qlawson ===== joe_audette@yahoo.com http://www.joeaudette.com http://www.mojoportal.com __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Read only the mail you want - Yahoo! Mail SpamGuard. http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail From qlawson@adelphia.net Sat Jun 6 10:03:27 2026 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

To: pgsql-general@postgresql.org= =20

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-- From alvherre@dcc.uchile.cl Sat Jun 6 10:03:27 2026 X-Original-To: pgsql-docs-postgresql.org@localhost.postgresql.org Received: from localhost (unknown [200.46.204.144]) by svr1.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D2AC13A523D; Sun, 23 Jan 2005 14:36:42 +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 90627-03; Sun, 23 Jan 2005 14:36:26 +0000 (GMT) Received: from sunsite.dcc.uchile.cl (sunsite.dcc.uchile.cl [192.80.24.2]) by svr1.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DF9B53A52B1; Sun, 23 Jan 2005 14:35:50 +0000 (GMT) Received: from anakena.dcc.uchile.cl ([192.80.24.3]) by sunsite.dcc.uchile.cl (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id j0NEZmPB012259; Sun, 23 Jan 2005 11:35:48 -0300 (CLST) Received: by anakena.dcc.uchile.cl (Postfix, from userid 4151) id 321A7527AB; Sun, 23 Jan 2005 11:35:48 -0300 (CLST) Date: Sun, 23 Jan 2005 11:35:48 -0300 From: Alvaro Herrera To: Quinton Lawson Cc: pgsql-general@postgresql.org, pgsql-docs@postgresql.org Subject: Re: [GENERAL] Windows 2000 Slower Than Windows XP (SOLVED) Message-ID: <20050123143548.GA4406@dcc.uchile.cl> References: <20050123034709.84430.qmail@web30703.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <000901c50103$946d2e00$6501a8c0@travis> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: <000901c50103$946d2e00$6501a8c0@travis> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.6i X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at hub.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.338 tagged_above=0 required=5 tests=AWL, DNS_FROM_RFC_ABUSE X-Spam-Level: X-Archive-Number: 200501/40 X-Sequence-Number: 2799 On Sat, Jan 22, 2005 at 10:25:30PM -0600, Quinton Lawson wrote: > 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. Maybe this deserves a FAQ entry or doc note somewhere. -- Alvaro Herrera () "Estoy de acuerdo contigo en que la verdad absoluta no existe... El problema es que la mentira s� existe y tu est�s mintiendo" (G. Lama) From lyeoh@pop.jaring.my Sat Jun 6 10:03:27 2026 X-Original-To: pgsql-docs-postgresql.org@localhost.postgresql.org Received: from localhost (unknown [200.46.204.144]) by svr1.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0CA5F3A19F9; Sun, 23 Jan 2005 15:36:47 +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 02464-03; Sun, 23 Jan 2005 15:36:33 +0000 (GMT) Received: from smtp8.jaring.my (smtp8.jaring.my [61.6.32.58]) by svr1.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7B20B3A190C; Sun, 23 Jan 2005 15:36:34 +0000 (GMT) Received: from nexus.localhost. ([219.95.244.132]) (authenticated bits=0) by smtp8.jaring.my (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id j0NFa91K087166; Sun, 23 Jan 2005 23:36:18 +0800 (MYT) (envelope-from lyeoh@pop.jaring.my) Message-Id: <5.2.1.1.1.20050123233139.03a3adf8@localhost> X-Sender: lyeoh@localhost X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.2.1 Date: Sun, 23 Jan 2005 23:34:44 +0800 To: Alvaro Herrera , Quinton Lawson From: Lincoln Yeoh Subject: Re: [GENERAL] Windows 2000 Slower Than Windows XP (SOLVED) Cc: pgsql-general@postgresql.org, pgsql-docs@postgresql.org In-Reply-To: <20050123143548.GA4406@dcc.uchile.cl> References: <000901c50103$946d2e00$6501a8c0@travis> <20050123034709.84430.qmail@web30703.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <000901c50103$946d2e00$6501a8c0@travis> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed X-Virus-Scanned: JARING E-Mail Virus Scanner v2.0 X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at hub.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.035 tagged_above=0 required=5 tests=AWL X-Spam-Level: X-Archive-Number: 200501/51 X-Sequence-Number: 2810 While not an FAQ (yet?) I find it interesting that installing a QoS packet scheduler would _improve_ response - (I'm assuming there's no other concurrent traffic other than DB traffic). Anyone know why this would be the case or have any ideas? Might it improve performance for other network software as well... Regards, Link. At 11:35 AM 1/23/2005 -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote: >On Sat, Jan 22, 2005 at 10:25:30PM -0600, Quinton Lawson wrote: > > > 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. > >Maybe this deserves a FAQ entry or doc note somewhere.