Received: from magus.postgresql.org (magus.postgresql.org [87.238.57.229]) by mail.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id EEFCA26E760 for ; Mon, 2 Apr 2012 08:35:16 -0300 (ADT) Received: from relay3-d.mail.gandi.net ([217.70.183.195]) by magus.postgresql.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1SEfXV-0004GL-KK for pgsql-performance@postgresql.org; Mon, 02 Apr 2012 11:35:16 +0000 X-Originating-IP: 217.70.178.130 Received: from mfilter1-d.gandi.net (mfilter1-d.gandi.net [217.70.178.130]) by relay3-d.mail.gandi.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0C731A80C3; Mon, 2 Apr 2012 13:34:51 +0200 (CEST) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at mfilter1-d.gandi.net Received: from relay3-d.mail.gandi.net ([217.70.183.195]) by mfilter1-d.gandi.net (mfilter1-d.gandi.net [10.0.15.180]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Cz4zZeuP3S4g; Mon, 2 Apr 2012 13:34:49 +0200 (CEST) X-Originating-IP: 98.27.54.176 Received: from [192.168.10.146] (cpe-098-027-054-176.nc.res.rr.com [98.27.54.176]) (Authenticated sender: adsend@dunslane.net) by relay3-d.mail.gandi.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 94656A807B; Mon, 2 Apr 2012 13:34:46 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <4F798ED5.1090602@dunslane.net> Date: Mon, 02 Apr 2012 07:34:45 -0400 From: Andrew Dunstan User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:10.0.1) Gecko/20120216 Thunderbird/10.0.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Claudio Freire CC: Andy , Ofer Israeli , "pgsql-performance@postgresql.org" Subject: Re: TCP Overhead on Local Loopback References: <217DDBC2BB1E394CA9E7446337CBDEF20102DEDB4A58@il-ex01.ad.checkpoint.com> <1333317709.70394.YahooMailNeo@web111301.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> <4F78EABF.2050209@dunslane.net> <4F78FCA7.8010307@dunslane.net> In-Reply-To: <4F78FCA7.8010307@dunslane.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Pg-Spam-Score: -1.9 (-) X-Archive-Number: 201204/9 X-Sequence-Number: 46655 On 04/01/2012 09:11 PM, Andrew Dunstan wrote: > > > On 04/01/2012 08:29 PM, Claudio Freire wrote: >> On Sun, Apr 1, 2012 at 8:54 PM, Andrew Dunstan >> wrote: >>>> You could try using Unix domain socket and see if the performance >>>> improves. A relevant link: >>> >>> He said Windows. There are no Unix domain sockets on Windows. (And >>> please >>> don't top-post) >> Windows supports named pipes, which are functionally similar, but I >> don't think pg supports them. >> > > Correct, so telling the OP to have a look at them isn't at all > helpful. And they are not supported on all Windows platforms we > support either (specifically not on XP, AIUI). > > Apparently I was mistaken about the availability. However, my initial point remains. Since all our client/server comms on Windows are over TCP, telling the OP to look at Unix domain sockets is unhelpful. cheers andrew