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
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? |