Ron Johnson wrote: > 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? I think it was a contributing reason for getting it in the first place, but it's certainly not the only reason... //Magnus ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 2: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
