| From: | "Trevor Talbot" <quension(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Joshua D(dot) Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(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 18:44:07 |
| Message-ID: | 90bce5730711281044q6fc307adv8801fd1f0b9d3410@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general |
On 11/28/07, Joshua D. Drake <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com> wrote:
> On Wed, 28 Nov 2007 09:53:34 -0800
> "Trevor Talbot" <quension(at)gmail(dot)com> 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 :)
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Alan Hodgson | 2007-11-28 18:46:43 | Re: How to automate password requests? |
| Previous Message | Tom Hart | 2007-11-28 18:39:56 | Re: How to automate password requests? |