| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Dave Page" <dpage(at)vale-housing(dot)co(dot)uk> |
| Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, Jason(at)tishler(dot)net |
| Subject: | Re: FW: Cygwin PostgreSQL Information and Suggestions |
| Date: | 2002-05-10 16:31:06 |
| Message-ID: | 28995.1021048266@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
"Dave Page" <dpage(at)vale-housing(dot)co(dot)uk> forwards:
> 4. Cygwin PostgreSQL is perceived to have poor performance. I have
> never done any benchmarks regarding this issue, but apparently Terry
> Carlin (from the defunct Great Bridge) did:
> http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-cygwin/2001-08/msg00029.php
> Specifically, he indicates the following:
> BTW, Up through 40 users, PostgreSQL under CYGWIN using the TPC-C
> benchmark performed very much the same as Linux PostgreSQL on the
> exact hardware.
It should be noted that the benchmark Terry is describing fires up
N concurrent backends and then measures the runtime for a specific query
workload. So it's not measuring connection startup time, which is
alleged by some to be Cygwin's weak spot. Nonetheless, I invite the
Postgres-on-Cygwin-isn't-worth-our-time camp to produce some benchmarks
supporting their position. I'm getting tired of reading unsubstantiated
assertions.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Joel Burton | 2002-05-10 16:43:16 | Re: FW: Cygwin PostgreSQL Information and Suggestions |
| Previous Message | Karel Zak | 2002-05-10 16:09:05 | Re: the parsing of parameters |