X-Original-To: pgsql-performance-postgresql.org@postgresql.org Received: from localhost (wm.hub.org [200.46.204.128]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CF8349FB279 for ; Tue, 22 Aug 2006 10:17:27 -0300 (ADT) Received: from postgresql.org ([200.46.204.71]) by localhost (mx1.hub.org [200.46.204.128]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 03017-01-8 for ; Tue, 22 Aug 2006 13:17:14 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey- Received: from sss.pgh.pa.us (sss.pgh.pa.us [66.207.139.130]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3C1CA9FB361 for ; Tue, 22 Aug 2006 10:17:08 -0300 (ADT) 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 k7MDH4TF002321; Tue, 22 Aug 2006 09:17:04 -0400 (EDT) To: "Ravindran G - TLS, Chennai." cc: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org Subject: Re: Postgre SQL 7.1 cygwin performance issue. In-reply-to: <012301731C23DE4DBFE035647C68F1CC03B3317B@sindhu.ctd.hcltech.com> References: <012301731C23DE4DBFE035647C68F1CC03B3317B@sindhu.ctd.hcltech.com> Comments: In-reply-to "Ravindran G - TLS, Chennai." message dated "Tue, 22 Aug 2006 18:09:21 +0530" Date: Tue, 22 Aug 2006 09:17:04 -0400 Message-ID: <2320.1156252624@sss.pgh.pa.us> From: Tom Lane X-Virus-Scanned: Maia Mailguard 1.0.1 X-Spam-Status: No, hits=3.816 tagged_above=0 required=5 tests=SPF_HELO_SOFTFAIL, SPF_SOFTFAIL X-Spam-Level: *** X-Archive-Number: 200608/335 X-Sequence-Number: 20520 "Ravindran G - TLS, Chennai." writes: > We are using PostgreSQL 7.1 cygwin installed on Windows 2000 (2 GB Memory, > P4). Egad :-( If you are worried about performance, get off 7.1. Even if you are not worried about performance, get off 7.1. It *will* eat your data someday. A native Windows build of PG 8.1 will blow the doors off 7.1/cygwin as to both performance and reliability. I know little about Windows versions, but I suspect people will tell you that a newer version of Windows would be a good idea too. regards, tom lane