On 11/28/07, Joshua D. Drake <jd@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Wed, 28 Nov 2007 09:53:34 -0800 > "Trevor Talbot" <quension@xxxxxxxxx> 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. > > I mean, I can understand NT having bottlenecks in various areas > > compared to Unix, but this "threads are specially optimized" thing is > > seeming a bit overblown. Just how often do you see threads from a > > single process get contiguous access to the CPU? > I thought it was more about the cost to fork() a process in win32? Creating a process is indeed expensive on Windows, but a followup question was about the performance when using persistent connections, and therefore not creating processes. That's where the conversation got more interesting :) ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 2: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
