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 121EBD87F7 for ; Tue, 13 Sep 2005 12:32:23 -0300 (ADT) 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 90425-08 for ; Tue, 13 Sep 2005 15:32:17 +0000 (GMT) Received: from sss.pgh.pa.us (sss.pgh.pa.us [66.207.139.130]) by svr1.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 231BAD8479 for ; Tue, 13 Sep 2005 12:32:16 -0300 (ADT) Received: from sss2.sss.pgh.pa.us (tgl@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sss.pgh.pa.us (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id j8DFW24J023482; Tue, 13 Sep 2005 11:32:02 -0400 (EDT) To: Dalibor Sramek Cc: Merlin Moncure , pgsql-performance@postgresql.org Subject: Re: Low performance on Windows problem In-reply-to: <20050913134951.GA53837@www.epot.cz> References: <6EE64EF3AB31D5448D0007DD34EEB3417DD312@Herge.rcsinc.local> <20050913134951.GA53837@www.epot.cz> Comments: In-reply-to Dalibor Sramek message dated "Tue, 13 Sep 2005 15:49:51 +0200" Date: Tue, 13 Sep 2005 11:32:02 -0400 Message-ID: <23481.1126625522@sss.pgh.pa.us> From: Tom Lane X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at hub.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.006 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.006] X-Spam-Level: X-Archive-Number: 200509/167 X-Sequence-Number: 14475 Dalibor Sramek writes: > select * from t_umlpattern limit 2 > takes 1500+ msec on the Windows machine and 60 on a comparable Linux > machine. Both selects performed from remote PgAdmin. > The same select performed localy on the windows machine takes 60 msec. So it's a networking issue. I haven't paid real close attention to Windows problems, but I recall that we've heard a couple of reports of Windows performance problems that were resolved by removing various third-party network filters and/or installing Windows service pack updates. Check through the list archives ... regards, tom lane