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 C111FD8C54 for ; Thu, 29 Sep 2005 09:31:13 -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 78897-09 for ; Thu, 29 Sep 2005 12:31:07 +0000 (GMT) Received: from linuxworld.com.au (unknown [203.34.46.50]) by svr1.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4E6D4D8B50 for ; Thu, 29 Sep 2005 09:31:08 -0300 (ADT) Received: from linuxworld.com.au (IDENT:swm@localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by linuxworld.com.au (8.13.2/8.13.2) with ESMTP id j8TCV6pR026605; Thu, 29 Sep 2005 22:31:06 +1000 Received: from localhost (swm@localhost) by linuxworld.com.au (8.13.2/8.13.2/Submit) with ESMTP id j8TCV619026602; Thu, 29 Sep 2005 22:31:06 +1000 X-Authentication-Warning: linuxworld.com.au: swm owned process doing -bs Date: Thu, 29 Sep 2005 22:31:06 +1000 (EST) From: Gavin Sherry X-X-Sender: swm@linuxworld.com.au To: Joe Cc: Magnus Hagander , pgsql-performance@postgresql.org Subject: Re: Comparative performance In-Reply-To: <433BDB0B.8010002@freedomcircle.net> Message-ID: References: <6BCB9D8A16AC4241919521715F4D8BCE92E6D6@algol.sollentuna.se> <433BDB0B.8010002@freedomcircle.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at hub.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.001 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.001] X-Spam-Level: X-Archive-Number: 200509/415 X-Sequence-Number: 14723 On Thu, 29 Sep 2005, Joe wrote: > 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. Please post the table definitions, queries and explain analyze results so we can tell you why the performance is poor. Gavin