Received: from localhost (maia-2.hub.org [200.46.204.187]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4D2649FA34A for ; Thu, 4 Jan 2007 11:24:43 -0400 (AST) Received: from postgresql.org ([200.46.204.71]) by localhost (mx1.hub.org [200.46.204.187]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 32738-02 for ; Thu, 4 Jan 2007 11:23:37 -0400 (AST) X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.4 Received: from sss.pgh.pa.us (sss.pgh.pa.us [66.207.139.130]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 85FDB9FA18F for ; Thu, 4 Jan 2007 11:23:55 -0400 (AST) Received: from sss2.sss.pgh.pa.us (tgl@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sss.pgh.pa.us (8.13.6/8.13.6) with ESMTP id l04FNp6j017035; Thu, 4 Jan 2007 10:23:52 -0500 (EST) To: "Jeremy Haile" cc: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org Subject: Re: Performance of PostgreSQL on Windows vs Linux In-reply-to: <1167922013.8482.283102539@webmail.messagingengine.com> References: <1167845064.29222.282952329@webmail.messagingengine.com> <459C39BF.4070403@hagander.net> <1167922013.8482.283102539@webmail.messagingengine.com> Comments: In-reply-to "Jeremy Haile" message dated "Thu, 04 Jan 2007 09:46:53 -0500" Date: Thu, 04 Jan 2007 10:23:51 -0500 Message-ID: <17034.1167924231@sss.pgh.pa.us> From: Tom Lane X-Virus-Scanned: Maia Mailguard 1.0.1 X-Archive-Number: 200701/54 X-Sequence-Number: 22655 "Jeremy Haile" writes: > Thanks for the response! I know I have to benchmark them to get a real > answer. I am just looking to hear someone say "We benchmarked Linux vs. > Windows with similar configuration and hardware and experienced a 25% > performance boost in Linux." or "We benchmarked them and found no > significant difference." I've heard anecdotal reports both ways: "there's no difference" and "there's a big difference". So there's no substitute for benchmarking your own application. I think one big variable in this is which PG version you are testing. We've been gradually filing down some of the rough edges in the native Windows port, so I'd expect that the performance gap is closing over time. I don't know how close to closed it is in 8.2, but I'd surely suggest that you do your benchmarking with 8.2. regards, tom lane