> -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Tom Lane > Sent: Friday, May 10, 2002 12:31 PM > To: Dave Page > Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: [HACKERS] FW: Cygwin PostgreSQL Information and Suggestions > > > > "Dave Page" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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.
... and it's worth remembering, too, that for some cases, connect time is completely unimportant: most of my work against PG is using shared, persistent connections from a web app (Zope); it could take 20 mins to make the initial connection and I'd still be happy. (Note to hackers: do not implement this 20min connect, though. :) ) - J. Joel BURTON | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | joelburton.com | aim: wjoelburton Knowledge Management & Technology Consultant ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 5: Have you checked our extensive FAQ? http://www.postgresql.org/users-lounge/docs/faq.html
