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 75C5CD8C54 for ; Thu, 29 Sep 2005 09:16:11 -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 78703-07 for ; Thu, 29 Sep 2005 12:16:06 +0000 (GMT) Received: from cluster1.echolabs.net (mail.atlanticbb.net [216.52.118.222]) by svr1.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 99936D706A for ; Thu, 29 Sep 2005 09:16:05 -0300 (ADT) X-Scanned-By: RAE MPP/Clamd http://www.messagepartners.com X-Scanned-By: RAE MPP/Cloudmark http://www.messagepartners.com Received: from [209.187.134.170] (account jma@atlanticbb.net HELO [127.0.0.1]) by fe2.cluster1.echolabs.net (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 4.3.7) with ESMTPA id 82616899; Thu, 29 Sep 2005 08:16:08 -0400 Message-ID: <433BDB0B.8010002@freedomcircle.net> Date: Thu, 29 Sep 2005 08:16:11 -0400 From: Joe Organization: Freedom Circle, LLC User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0 (Windows/20041206) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Magnus Hagander Cc: Gavin Sherry , pgsql-performance@postgresql.org Subject: Re: Comparative performance References: <6BCB9D8A16AC4241919521715F4D8BCE92E6D6@algol.sollentuna.se> In-Reply-To: <6BCB9D8A16AC4241919521715F4D8BCE92E6D6@algol.sollentuna.se> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at hub.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.042 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.008, FORGED_RCVD_HELO=0.05] X-Spam-Level: X-Archive-Number: 200509/413 X-Sequence-Number: 14721 Magnus Hagander wrote: > That actually depends a lot on *how* you use it. I've seen pg-on-windows > deployments that come within a few percent of the linux performance. > I've also seen those that are absolutely horrible compared. > > One sure way to kill the performance is to do a lot of small > connections. Using persistent connection is even more important on > Windows than it is on Unix. It could easily explain a difference like > this. I just tried using pg_pconnect() and I didn't notice any significant improvement. What bothers me most is that with Postgres I tend to see jerky behavior on almost every page: the upper 1/2 or 2/3 of the page is displayed first and you can see a blank bottom (or you can see a half-filled completion bar). With MySQL each page is generally displayed in one swoop. Joe