From: | Mark Kirkwood <markir(at)paradise(dot)net(dot)nz> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: [PERFORM] What do the Windows pg hackers out there like |
Date: | 2006-02-12 04:06:22 |
Message-ID: | 43EEB43E.2090304@paradise.net.nz |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers pgsql-performance |
Tom Lane wrote:
> Mark Kirkwood <markir(at)paradise(dot)net(dot)nz> writes:
>
>>I was doing exactly this about a year ago and used Mingw. The only
>>annoyance was that I could compile everything on Linux in about 3
>>minutes (P4 2.8Ghz), but had to wait about 60-90 minutes for the same
>>thing on Windows 2003 Server! (also a P4 2.8Ghz...). So I used to build
>>a 'go for coffee' task into the build and test cycle.
>
>
> Youch! That seems unbelievably bad, even for Microsloth. Did you ever
> identify what was the bottleneck?
>
No - I was connecting using an RDB client from a Linux box (over a LAN),
so was never sure how much that was hurting things... but (as noted by
Magnus) the compiler itself is noticeablely slower (easily observed
during the 'configure' step).
cheers
Mark
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2006-02-12 04:44:53 | Re: to_char and i18n |
Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2006-02-12 03:55:59 | Re: TODO Item - Add system view to show free space map |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Aaron Turner | 2006-02-12 07:58:48 | Re: 10+hrs vs 15min because of just one index |
Previous Message | Jim C. Nasby | 2006-02-11 21:24:53 | Re: 10+hrs vs 15min because of just one index |