2008/6/4 David E. Wheeler <david(at)kineticode(dot)com>:
> On Jun 3, 2008, at 20:48, Greg Smith wrote:
>> Correct, but completely off-topic regardless. One problem to be solved
>> here is to take PostgreSQL tuning from zero to, say, 50% automatic. Wander
>> the user lists for a few months; the number of completely misconfigured
>> systems out there is considerable, partly because the default values for
>> many parameters are completely unreasonable for modern hardware and there's
>> no easy way to improve on that without someone educating themselves.
>> Getting distracted by the requirements of the high-end systems will give
>> you a problem you have no hope of executing in a reasonable time period.
> Exactly. The issue is that application developers, who are not DBAs, have no
> idea how to tune PostgreSQL, and postgresql.conf is daunting and confusing.
> So they use a different database that's "faster".
do you thing, so any better config can help? It's not possible. And
you can't tune database without well knowledge of applications that
use database. Any automatic tools are joy for child. But some default
PostgreSQL parameters are not optimal.
> I think that right now postgresql.conf is designed for full-time DBAs,
> rather than folks who might want to target PostgreSQL for an application
> they're developing. We want to attract the latter (without, of course, any
> expense with the former). Changing how configuration works so that it's
> easier to understand and, if possible, at least partly automatically tunable
> would go a long way towards making PostgreSQL friendlier for developers,
> Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org)
> To make changes to your subscription:
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Tom Lane||Date: 2008-06-04 20:33:20|
|Subject: Re: Change lock requirements for adding a trigger |
|Previous:||From: Tom Lane||Date: 2008-06-04 20:29:43|
|Subject: Re: Proposal: new function array_init |