X-Original-To: pgsql-hackers-postgresql.org@localhost.postgresql.org Received: from localhost (av.hub.org [200.46.204.144]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2D1879DC9EA for ; Sun, 12 Feb 2006 00:08:18 -0400 (AST) Received: from postgresql.org ([200.46.204.71]) by localhost (av.hub.org [200.46.204.144]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 01312-04 for ; Sun, 12 Feb 2006 00:08:16 -0400 (AST) X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey- Received: from linda-3.paradise.net.nz (bm-3a.paradise.net.nz [203.96.152.182]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 111EA9DC9D3 for ; Sun, 12 Feb 2006 00:08:15 -0400 (AST) Received: from smtp-3.paradise.net.nz (tclsnelb1-src-1.paradise.net.nz [203.96.152.172]) by linda-3.paradise.net.nz (Paradise.net.nz) with ESMTP id <0IUK001KP3EQT8@linda-3.paradise.net.nz> for pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org; Sun, 12 Feb 2006 17:06:26 +1300 (NZDT) Received: from [192.168.1.11] (218-101-29-196.dsl.clear.net.nz [218.101.29.196]) by smtp-3.paradise.net.nz (Postfix) with ESMTP id 42FB5966443; Sun, 12 Feb 2006 17:06:25 +1300 (NZDT) Date: Sun, 12 Feb 2006 17:06:22 +1300 From: Mark Kirkwood Subject: Re: [PERFORM] What do the Windows pg hackers out there like In-reply-to: <8128.1139674174@sss.pgh.pa.us> To: Tom Lane Cc: pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org Message-id: <43EEB43E.2090304@paradise.net.nz> MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit X-Accept-Language: en-us, en User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0.6 (X11/20051106) References: <7.0.1.0.2.20060210141522.035d4940@earthlink.net> <43ED4488.80207@paradise.net.nz> <8128.1139674174@sss.pgh.pa.us> X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at hub.org X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.215 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.215] X-Spam-Score: 0.215 X-Spam-Level: X-Archive-Number: 200602/475 X-Sequence-Number: 79613 Tom Lane wrote: > Mark Kirkwood writes: > >>I was doing exactly this about a year ago and used Mingw. The only >>annoyance was that I could compile everything on Linux in about 3 >>minutes (P4 2.8Ghz), but had to wait about 60-90 minutes for the same >>thing on Windows 2003 Server! (also a P4 2.8Ghz...). So I used to build >>a 'go for coffee' task into the build and test cycle. > > > Youch! That seems unbelievably bad, even for Microsloth. Did you ever > identify what was the bottleneck? > No - I was connecting using an RDB client from a Linux box (over a LAN), so was never sure how much that was hurting things... but (as noted by Magnus) the compiler itself is noticeablely slower (easily observed during the 'configure' step). cheers Mark