Personally, I think it is useful to have features. I quite understand the
difficulties in maintaining some features however. Also having worked on
internals for commercial DB engines, I have specifically how code/data paths
can be shortened. I would not make the choice for someone to be forced into
using a product in a specific manner. Instead, I would let them decide
whether to choose a simple setup or, if they are up to it, something with
better performance. I would not prune the options out. In doing so, we
limit what a knowledgeable person can do a priori.
On Thursday 30 October 2003 19:59, Sailesh Krishnamurthy wrote:
> >>>>> "Jordan" == Jordan Henderson <jordan_henders(at)yahoo(dot)com> writes:
> Jordan> significantly better results. I would not say it requires
> Jordan> considerable tuning, but an understanding of data, storage
> Jordan> and access patterns. Additionally, these features did not
> Jordan> cause our group considerable administrative overhead.
> I won't dispute the specifics. I have only worked on the DB2 engine -
> never written an app for it nor administered it. You're right - the
> bottomline is that you can get a significant performance advantage
> provided you care enough to understand what's going on.
> Anyway, I merely responded to provide a data point. Will PostgreSQL
> users/administrators care for additional knobs or is there a
> preference for "keep it simple, stupid" ?
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Tom Lane||Date: 2003-10-31 05:01:53|
|Subject: Re: Call for port reports |
|Previous:||From: Bruce Momjian||Date: 2003-10-31 04:59:05|
|Subject: Annotated release notes|