Re: Overhauling GUCS

From: "Joshua D(dot) Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Robert Treat <xzilla(at)users(dot)sourceforge(dot)net>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, Greg Smith <gsmith(at)gregsmith(dot)com>, Andreas Pflug <pgadmin(at)pse-consulting(dot)de>, Decibel! <decibel(at)decibel(dot)org>, Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>
Subject: Re: Overhauling GUCS
Date: 2008-06-07 01:08:11
Message-ID: 1212800891.14299.35.camel@jd-laptop
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Fri, 2008-06-06 at 20:19 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Robert Treat <xzilla(at)users(dot)sourceforge(dot)net> writes:

> Actually, the reason it's still 10 is that the effort expended to get it
> changed has been *ZERO*. I keep asking for someone to make some
> measurements, do some benchmarking, anything to make a plausible case
> for a specific higher value as being a reasonable place to set it.

> The silence has been deafening.

Not surprising really. It is a simple adjustment to make and it also is
easy to spot when its a problem. However it is not trivial to test for
(in terms of time and effort). I know 10 is wrong and so do you. If you
don't I am curious why I see so many posts from you saying, "Your
estimates are off, what is your default_statistics_target?" with yet
even more responses saying, "Uhh 10."

Sincerely,

Joshua D. Drake

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2008-06-07 02:00:41 Re: Overhauling GUCS
Previous Message Greg Smith 2008-06-07 01:02:25 Re: Overhauling GUCS