-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 11/28/07 11:13, Magnus Hagander wrote: > On Wed, 2007-11-28 at 07:29 -0700, Scott Ribe wrote: >>> Yes, very much so. Windows lacks the fork() concept, which is what makes >>> PostgreSQL much slower there. >> So grossly slower process creation would kill postgres connection times. But >> what about the cases where persistent connections are used? Is it the case >> also that Windows has a performance bottleneck for interprocess >> communication? > > There is at least one other bottleneck, probably more than one. Context > switching between processes is a lot more expensive than on Unix (given > that win32 is optimized towards context switching between threads). NTFS Isn't that why Apache2 has separate "thread mode" and 1.x-style pre-forked mode? > isn't optimized for having 100+ processes reading and writing to the > same file. Probably others.. - -- Ron Johnson, Jr. Jefferson LA USA %SYSTEM-F-FISH, my hovercraft is full of eels -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFHTaP3S9HxQb37XmcRAoFfAJ4gQJIzI95FWyukNy0+7mt2NT+MFgCbBpt/ pdIzLmq1Rndnt3busADFHP8= =NgLQ -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 6: explain analyze is your friend
