Search Postgresql Archives

Re: Linux v.s. Mac OS-X Performance

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



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

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[Index of Archives]     [Postgresql Jobs]     [Postgresql Admin]     [Postgresql Performance]     [Linux Clusters]     [PHP Home]     [PHP on Windows]     [Kernel Newbies]     [PHP Classes]     [PHP Books]     [PHP Databases]     [Postgresql & PHP]     [Yosemite]
  Powered by Linux