Re: SQL Server performing much better?!?! - Mailing list pgsql-general

From Mark kirkwood
Subject Re: SQL Server performing much better?!?!
Date
Msg-id 1016972589.1272.9.camel@spikey.slithery.org
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: SQL Server performing much better?!?!  (Thomas Lockhart <lockhart@fourpalms.org>)
Responses Re: SQL Server performing much better?!?!  (Holger Marzen <holger@marzen.de>)
List 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




pgsql-general by date:

Previous
From: Bruce Momjian
Date:
Subject: Re: Anyone working on non-cygwin Win32 Port?
Next
From: Weiping He
Date:
Subject: Re: What is the difference between --enable-multibyte and