Received: from maia.hub.org (maia-2.hub.org [200.46.204.251]) by mail.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 08CB51337B6C for ; Wed, 8 Dec 2010 19:35:48 -0400 (AST) Received: from mail.postgresql.org ([200.46.204.86]) by maia.hub.org (mx1.hub.org [200.46.204.251]) (amavisd-maia, port 10024) with ESMTP id 16297-03 for ; Wed, 8 Dec 2010 23:35:40 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from 63.mail-out.ovh.net (63.mail-out.ovh.net [91.121.185.56]) by mail.postgresql.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 5EEB91337B6D for ; Wed, 8 Dec 2010 19:35:38 -0400 (AST) Received: (qmail 25336 invoked by uid 503); 9 Dec 2010 00:09:38 -0000 Received: from b9.ovh.net (HELO mail188.ha.ovh.net) (213.186.33.59) by 63.mail-out.ovh.net with SMTP; 9 Dec 2010 00:09:38 -0000 Received: from b0.ovh.net (HELO queueout) (213.186.33.50) by b0.ovh.net with SMTP; 9 Dec 2010 01:35:35 +0200 Received: from par69-8-88-161-102-87.fbx.proxad.net (HELO apollo13) (lists%peufeu.com@88.161.102.87) by ns0.ovh.net with SMTP; 9 Dec 2010 01:35:34 +0200 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed; delsp=yes To: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org, "Tom Polak" Subject: Re: Compared MS SQL 2000 to Postgresql 9.0 on Windows References: <378e24d1e3af88a49fbbb7c4d26f441a@mail.gmail.com> <4CFE7964.80206@squeakycode.net> <4CFE8E59.2010505@squeakycode.net> <20101207201028.GE4028@aart.is.rice.edu> <4CFE97B4.8090708@squeakycode.net> Date: Thu, 09 Dec 2010 00:35:34 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit From: "Pierre C" Message-ID: In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Opera Mail/10.62 (Linux) X-Ovh-Tracer-Id: 1604970318441678385 X-Ovh-Remote: 88.161.102.87 (par69-8-88-161-102-87.fbx.proxad.net) X-Ovh-Local: 213.186.33.20 (ns0.ovh.net) X-Spam-Check: DONE|U 0.5/N X-Virus-Scanned: Maia Mailguard 1.0.1 X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-1.9 tagged_above=-10 required=5 tests=BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001 X-Spam-Level: X-Archive-Number: 201012/120 X-Sequence-Number: 41572 > The hardware it > is running on is fairly good, dual Xeon CPUs, 4 GB of RAM, Raid 5. For a database you'd want to consider replacing the RAID1 with a RAID1 (or RAID10). RAID5 is slow for small random updates, which are common in databases. Since you probably have enough harddisks anyway, this won't cost you. Linux or freebsd would also be better choices for postgres rather than windows. Also, as said, your issue looks very much like a problem in the way your application communicates with postgres : if it takes postgres 5 ms to process the query and your application gets the result 8 seconds later, there is a problem. Note that SQL Server probably takes just a few ms for such a simple query, too, so your not really benchmarking SQL server either.