On Fri, 2003-02-14 at 03:00, Daniel Kalchev wrote:
> >>>Jason Hihn said:
> > Pardon my ignorance, but there's no way to auto-tune? Ship it with a thread
> > that gathers statistics and periodically re-tunes the database parameters.
> > Of course, be able to turn it off. People that actually take the time to run
> > tune manually will turn it off as to not have the overhead or interruption.
> > Those that don't care about pg_tune shouldn't care about having a thread
> > around retuning. Those that will care will tune manually.
> This is related to my proposition, but trouble is, there is not such thing as
> 'well tuned database' that will suit all queries. You can tune the database to
> the hardware for example (still remember that old argument on random access
> and fast disks).
> It seems the system could 'self-tune' itself on minor choices. I believe it
> does this today for a number of things already. More significant changes
> require the DBA consent and choice - but they need to be well informed of the
> current usage statistics when making the choice.
I agree. Given that we don't have solid explanations on telling people
how to tune the different parameters, nor do we have enough mechanisms
for actually giving people the information they need to determine the
changes they need, a complete auto-tune seems premature.
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Patrick Welche||Date: 2003-02-14 16:00:05|
|Subject: Re: psql and readline|
|Previous:||From: Manfred Koizar||Date: 2003-02-14 15:53:07|
|Subject: Re: Brain dump: btree collapsing|
pgsql-advocacy by date
|Next:||From: johnnnnnn||Date: 2003-02-14 16:33:14|
|Subject: Re: Tuning scenarios (was Changing the default configuration)|
|Previous:||From: Tom Lane||Date: 2003-02-14 15:07:45|
|Subject: Re: Offering tuned config files |