--- In ib-support@y..., "Alexander V.Nevsky" <alex_vnru@y...> wrote:

> --- In ib-support@y..., cuncua1@y... wrote:
> > Do you know why is the FreeBSD port so slow (compared for example
> with the old Interbase 4.0 on the same platform) ?.
>
> I never saw FreeBSD too, but have experience of migration from IB4.
> Usually speed problem is optimizer - for many queries optimizer of IB5
> and higher build another plans than IB4. Sometimes better, sometimes
> worse. Check plan FB use for slow queries and if it is bad, try to
> optimize it changing query or using explicit plan. Do you access gdb
> file made by IB4 with FB? It can be source of problem too, I recommend
> to create new instance via backup/restore.

I used a fresh test database, with few registers (about 40) and use very si=
mple selects (select * from dat1;).
I made my tests (this is not benchmarking) using the C api, and comparing l=
asts Linux versions IB4 and FB 0.9. on same hardware.
On FreeBSD, I can´t compile anything on IB4 (because the libraries needed) =
and made the tests with isql (echo "something"|isql db1),
and see appreciable speed differences between FB0.9 and IB4 for FreeBSD.

As I say in my previous message ("firebird slow on freebsd") I found speed =
diferences between linux and FreeBSD ports on same machine, using the simple=
C programs described above.
The major delay difference was in the ibase_prepare function.

Allways using local databases and local connections.

>
> > It is a platform problem (semaphores,etc.)?
>
> As far as I can remember from SCO experience some years ago,
> semaphores can limit amount of connections for classic IB/FB but not
> speed and are not used in superserver version at all. Among FB config
> and database parameters speed is mainly dependent on database page
> size and database cashe buffers. I think wrong tuning of TCP/IP and
> DNS can decrease speed, especially time of connect establishing, but
> I'm not especialist on this stuff.
>
> Best regards.

Thank you.