Re: SQL Server performing much better?!?!

From: Mark kirkwood <markir(at)slingshot(dot)co(dot)nz>
To: lockhart(at)fourpalms(dot)org
Cc: Christian Cabanero <chumpboy(at)yahoo(dot)com>, pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: SQL Server performing much better?!?!
Date: 2002-03-24 12:23:07
Message-ID: 1016972589.1272.9.camel@spikey.slithery.org
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-general

On Sun, 2002-03-24 at 01:32, Thomas Lockhart wrote:
> (I haven't followed the thread closely, but would like to comment anyway
> ;)
No problem... thats probably what I did ... :-)

>
> That is a pretty drastic set of alternatives. Solaris can do just fine
> as a PostgreSQL platform. Certainly 2GHz Intel hotboxes can spin more
> cpu cycles than a 200MHz Solaris box (I don't know the specifics of your
> hosting environment), and if you are just flat out asking for more than
> the box can do then swapping hosts is an alternative. But unless you
> have exhausted the possibilities for tuning on your existing box you
> likely still have some things you can do to make the most of what you
> have.
>
> Good luck!
>
> - Thomas
Agreed...I currently work with Solaris and its generally quite good...
but there seems to be a definite performance problem with Postgresql on
Solaris (see a previous thread with title "Solaris Performance").

I am planning to profile a test case query that I have, so the problem
can be identified...(soon hopefully)

Cheers

Mark

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-general by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Weiping He 2002-03-24 15:11:28 Re: What is the difference between --enable-multibyte and
Previous Message Bruce Momjian 2002-03-24 06:16:00 Re: Anyone working on non-cygwin Win32 Port?