Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Merlin Moncure wrote:
>> Ok, I am starting to strongly suspect the statistics collector of
>> various kinds of malfeasance.
> OK, the big problem is that we are nearing RC1. We would like some
> feedback on this as soon as possible. A major Win32 clean
Merlin Moncure wrote:
> > > This was an intersting Win32/linux comparison. I expected
> > > Linux to scale better, but I was surprised how poorly XP
> > > scaled. It reinforces our perception that Win32 is for low
> > > traffic servers.
> >
> > That's a bit harsh given the lack of any further inv
> > This was an intersting Win32/linux comparison. I expected
> > Linux to scale better, but I was surprised how poorly XP
> > scaled. It reinforces our perception that Win32 is for low
> > traffic servers.
>
> That's a bit harsh given the lack of any further investigation so far
> isn't it? Win3
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf
> Of Bruce Momjian
> Sent: 23 November 2004 02:26
> To: Merlin Moncure
> Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; PostgreSQL Win32 port list
> Subject: Re: [pgsql-hackers-win32] scalability issues on win32
>
>
> This
> -Original Message-
> From: Bruce Momjian [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: 23 November 2004 15:06
> To: Dave Page
> Cc: Merlin Moncure; [EMAIL PROTECTED];
> PostgreSQL Win32 port list
> Subject: Re: [pgsql-hackers-win32] scalability issues on win32
>
> The general opinion of server
Merlin Moncure schrieb:
Following is the promised writeup in performance related issues
comparing win32 with linux x86 and linux x86-64. Unfortunately, the 64
bit portion of the test is not yet completed and won't be for a bit.
However there are some telling things about the win32/linux comparison
Dave Page wrote:
>
>
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Bruce Momjian [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Sent: 23 November 2004 15:06
> > To: Dave Page
> > Cc: Merlin Moncure; [EMAIL PROTECTED];
> > PostgreSQL Win32 port list
> > Subject: Re: [pgsql-hackers-win32] scalability issues on win32
> Is this for Postgresql Cygwin? You surely can't mean "for all server
> tasks" - if so, I would say that's *way* off. There is a difference,
but
> it's more along the line of single-digit percentage in my experience -
> provided you config your machines reasonably, of course.
>
> (In my experienc
> > > This was an intersting Win32/linux comparison. I expected
> Linux to
> > > scale better, but I was surprised how poorly XP scaled. It
> > > reinforces our perception that Win32 is for low traffic servers.
> >
> > That's a bit harsh given the lack of any further
> investigation so far
>
Dave Page wrote:
>
>
> > -Original Message-
> > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf
> > Of Bruce Momjian
> > Sent: 23 November 2004 02:26
> > To: Merlin Moncure
> > Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; PostgreSQL Win32 port list
> > Subject: Re: [pgsql-hackers-win32] scal
Reini Urban wrote:
> Merlin Moncure schrieb:
> > A good benchmark of our application performance is the time it takes
to
> > read the entire bill of materials for a product. This is a
recursive
> > read of about 2500 records in the typical case (2408 in the test
case).
>
> I always knew that COBO
This was an intersting Win32/linux comparison. I expected Linux to scale
better, but I was surprised how poorly XP scaled. It reinforces our
perception that Win32 is for low traffic servers.
---
Merlin Moncure wrote:
> Foll
12 matches
Mail list logo
