1. What configuration changes have you made?
None, both installations are default configured.
You'll want to do at least some tuning on PG. Try the URL below for a quick introduction - just the basic stuff is a good start. http://www.varlena.com/varlena/GeneralBits/Tidbits/perf.html
2. How many concurrent connections was this?One.
OK. That keeps things nice and simple.
3. Were you selecting 1000 rows (LIMIT 1000), selecting all the rows (and only fetching 1000) or actually defining an SQL cursor.
I used "LIMIT 1000", resp. "TOP 1000" statements.
OK. The reason I asked was that if you ask for 1000000 rows, then PG will find them all and return them all in a bunch. Most other servers return the first row once it's available.
4. What was the load on the machine - CPU or DISK peaking? 5. What was the RAM usage like?
CPU (< 10%) and RAM (<10%) usage were very low.
- I guess (as you mentioned below) it's the NT file system. When running PostgreSQL queries I can hear the harddisk buzzing, but not with SQL Server queries.
If you're seeing hard-disk activity that means the data isn't cached.
On the other hand, if an application has to "fight" against the file system, I would suppose it to increase RAM and CPU usage significantly.
It shouldn't be fighting the file system, but it does use it, and rely on it for caching (rather than bypassing your filesystem cache). For MS-SQL server I'm guessing you're allocating a lot of memory to SQL server and not much to the file-cache. For PG you'll want it the other way around.
-- Richard Huxton Archonet Ltd
---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 1: subscribe and unsubscribe commands go to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
