On Wed, 2005-09-07 at 01:50, Jürgen Rose wrote:
> Scott Marlowe wrote:
> >
> > A couple of points:
> >
> > 1: You wouldn't buy the QE II (a big luxery liner) and complain that it
> > doesn't work well for water skiing and is too complex. It's the QE II.
>
> I don't get that argument.
The real
Apparently postgresql runs at 11% to 45% of normal speed in VMware
workstation. Basically it could be about 1/10th the performance for OLTP
stuff.
See here:
http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/Research/SRG/netos/xen/performance.html
(Notice also that the web server performance is less than 30% of native).
Scott Marlowe wrote:
On Tue, 2005-09-06 at 16:09, Jürgen Rose wrote:
Sorry, but I better use this email address, I just hate to use Outlook
for this stuff.
To Peter Eisentraut
Yes, I've read the chapter in the manual.
To Michael Glaesemann
locally I run the database on my laptop (Dell D800
On Tue, 2005-09-06 at 16:09, Jürgen Rose wrote:
> Sorry, but I better use this email address, I just hate to use Outlook
> for this stuff.
>
> To Peter Eisentraut
>
> Yes, I've read the chapter in the manual.
>
> To Michael Glaesemann
>
> locally I run the database on my laptop (Dell D800) 1 G
=?ISO-8859-1?Q?J=FCrgen_Rose?= <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> enough of ranting, but I'm totally frustrated
So are we, because you haven't provided nearly enough detail to let
anyone help you. A complete test case would be good, for instance.
regards, tom lane
---
On 9/6/05, Jürgen Rose <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I did some serious stuff with SQLServer and Interbase, and I had
> **never** those performance problems.
>
On a laptop? Under VMWare?
I have used MSSQL Server too, and find PostgreSQL to compare favorably
in most cases. You may have found
# [EMAIL PROTECTED] / 2005-09-05 09:39:47 +0200:
> I working now for a wile with postgres (7.4), and I have the impression
> that is one of the slowest dbms with which I've aver worked. Can please
> somebody explain to me, why this is the case?
Because the default configuration (is | seems to
