Tom Lane <tgl@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > I have no idea how much memory SQL Server thinks it can use Hmmm... That triggered an old memory -- when we were running SQL Server on Windows there was some registry setting which we tweaked to prevent the OS from trying to cache disk I/O. (Sorry I don't remember the name of it.) That helped SQL Server perform better, but would cripple PostgreSQL -- it counts on OS caching. Of course, once we found that PostgreSQL was 70% faster on identical hardware with identical load, and switching the OS to Linux brought it to twice as fast, I haven't had to worry about SQL Server or Windows configurations. ;-) Don't panic if PostgreSQL seems slower at first, it's probably a configuration or maintenance schedule issue that can be sorted out. Besides the specific advice Tom gave you, you might want to browse this page for configuration in general: http://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/Tuning_Your_PostgreSQL_Server And if you continue to experience performance issues, this page can help you get to a resolution quickly: http://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/SlowQueryQuestions We've been very happy with the switch to PostgreSQL. We've had better performance, better reliability, less staff time needed to babysit backups, and we've been gradually using more of the advance features not available in other products. It's well worth the effort to get over those initial bumps resulting from product differences. -Kevin -- Sent via pgsql-performance mailing list (pgsql-performance@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-performance
