From: | "Joshua D(dot) Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | "Trevor Talbot" <quension(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | "Magnus Hagander" <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net>, "Scott Ribe" <scott_ribe(at)killerbytes(dot)com>, "pgsql general" <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Linux v.s. Mac OS-X Performance |
Date: | 2007-11-28 18:00:42 |
Message-ID: | 20071128100042.28add32b@commandprompt.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
On Wed, 28 Nov 2007 09:53:34 -0800
"Trevor Talbot" <quension(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> On 11/28/07, Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net> 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?
Sincerely,
Joshua D. Drake
- --
=== The PostgreSQL Company: Command Prompt, Inc. ===
Sales/Support: +1.503.667.4564 24x7/Emergency: +1.800.492.2240
PostgreSQL solutions since 1997 http://www.commandprompt.com/
UNIQUE NOT NULL
Donate to the PostgreSQL Project: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate
PostgreSQL Replication: http://www.commandprompt.com/products/
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFHTazMATb/zqfZUUQRAtpgAJwNXh9tyO0J/KSYnlzB5HoTiru/3wCfQeDy
5cZ+OIZmAUMPmuflVfRP11Q=
=4j6q
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | David Fetter | 2007-11-28 18:14:52 | Re: Select all fields except one |
Previous Message | Jutta Horstmann | 2007-11-28 18:00:25 | Re: PostgresSQL vs. Informix |