X-Original-To: pgsql-performance-postgresql.org@localhost.postgresql.org Received: from localhost (av.hub.org [200.46.204.144]) by svr1.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id EDB89D8A44 for ; Wed, 2 Nov 2005 10:47:27 -0400 (AST) 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 78638-02 for ; Wed, 2 Nov 2005 14:47:23 +0000 (GMT) Received: from mercure-2.sigma.fr (mercure-2.sigma.fr [195.25.81.10]) by svr1.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6DE65D8A0B for ; Wed, 2 Nov 2005 10:47:25 -0400 (AST) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mercure-2.sigma.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id ABED917FC9; Wed, 2 Nov 2005 15:47:28 +0100 (CET) Received: from mercure-2.sigma.fr ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mercure-2 [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 15661-02; Wed, 2 Nov 2005 15:47:28 +0100 (CET) Received: from delpiv3000-124l (unknown [89.195.0.5]) by mercure-2.sigma.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7594017F7E; Wed, 2 Nov 2005 15:47:28 +0100 (CET) From: Marc Cousin Organization: Sigma Informatique To: "Magnus Hagander" Subject: Re: insert performance for win32 Date: Wed, 2 Nov 2005 15:47:28 +0100 User-Agent: KMail/1.8.92 Cc: "Merlin Moncure" , pgsql-performance@postgresql.org, "Qingqing Zhou" References: <6BCB9D8A16AC4241919521715F4D8BCE6C7B4A@algol.sollentuna.se> In-Reply-To: <6BCB9D8A16AC4241919521715F4D8BCE6C7B4A@algol.sollentuna.se> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200511021547.28258.mcousin@sigma.fr> X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new-20030616-p10 (Debian) at sigma.fr X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at hub.org X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.905 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.905, RCVD_IN_WHOIS_BOGONS=1.811] X-Spam-Score: 0.905 X-Spam-Level: X-Archive-Number: 200511/30 X-Sequence-Number: 15287 Le Mercredi 02 Novembre 2005 14:54, Magnus Hagander a =E9crit=A0: > > > I've done the tests with rc1. This is still as slow on windows ... > > > > about > > > > > 6-10 > > > times slower thant linux (via Ip socket). (depending on > > > > using prepared > > > > > queries, etc...) > > > > > > By the way, we've tried to insert into the windows database from a > > > > linux > > > > > psql > > > client, via the network. In this configuration, inserting is only > > > > about 2 > > > > > times slower than inserting locally (the linux client had a > > > > slower CPU > > > > > 1700Mhz agains 3000). > > > Could it be related to a problem in the windows psql client ? > > > > [OK, I'm bringing this back on-list, and bringing it to > > QingQing's attention, who I secretly hope is the right person > > to be looking at this problem :)] > > > > Just to recap Marc and I have been looking at the performance > > disparity between windows and linux for a single transaction > > statement by statement insert on a very narrow table with no > > keys from a remote client. Marc's observations showed (and I > > verified) that windows is much slower in this case than it > > should be. I gprof'ed both the psql client and the server > > during the insert and didn't see anything seriously out of > > order...unfortunately QQ's latest win32 performance tweaks > > haven't helped. > > > > Marc's observation that by switching to a linux client drops > > time down drastically is really intersing! > > Could this be a case of the network being slow, as we've seen a couple > of times before? And if you run psql on the local box, you get it > double. > > Do you get a speed difference between the local windows box and a remote > wnidows box? > > //Magnus The Windows-Windows test is local (via loopback interface) The Linux (client) - Windows (server) is via network (100Mbits) I can't test with 2 windows box ... I haven't got that much (all machines=20 linux, except the test one...)