X-Original-To: pgsql-performance-postgresql.org@localhost.postgresql.org Received: from localhost (unknown [200.46.204.144]) by svr1.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 820455280C for ; Fri, 24 Jun 2005 10:40:31 -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 48796-05 for ; Fri, 24 Jun 2005 13:40:29 +0000 (GMT) Received: from sss.pgh.pa.us (sss.pgh.pa.us [66.207.139.130]) by svr1.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0E4F352985 for ; Fri, 24 Jun 2005 10:40:28 -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 j5ODeRR4026064; Fri, 24 Jun 2005 09:40:27 -0400 (EDT) To: sgoldstein@apache.org Cc: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org Subject: Re: Postgres 8 vs Postgres 7.4/cygwin In-reply-to: <20050624043254.32587.qmail@web81703.mail.yahoo.com> References: <20050624043254.32587.qmail@web81703.mail.yahoo.com> Comments: In-reply-to Scott Goldstein message dated "Thu, 23 Jun 2005 21:32:54 -0700" Date: Fri, 24 Jun 2005 09:40:27 -0400 Message-ID: <26063.1119620427@sss.pgh.pa.us> From: Tom Lane X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at hub.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.006 tagged_above=0 required=5 tests=AWL X-Spam-Level: X-Archive-Number: 200506/471 X-Sequence-Number: 13108 Scott Goldstein writes: > I'm currently trying to make a decision on whether to use the Cygwin port of Postgres 7.4 or Postgres 8.0 for a windows installation. Can someone provide some comparison info from a performance point of view? I was thinking that the Cygwin port has the overhead of the translation layer, but 8.0 is a newer product and may still have performance issue. Can anyone comment on this? Well, the performance issues of the cygwin-based releases are the stuff of legend ;-). New product or no, this is really a no-brainer. regards, tom lane