From: | Daniel Kalchev <daniel(at)digsys(dot)bg> |
---|---|
To: | Jason Hihn <jhihn(at)paytimepayroll(dot)com> |
Cc: | PostgresSQL Hackers Mailing List <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, pgsql-advocacy(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: [HACKERS] Changing the default configuration |
Date: | 2003-02-14 08:00:28 |
Message-ID: | 200302140800.h1E80SY04664@dcave.digsys.bg |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-advocacy pgsql-hackers |
>>>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.
Daniel
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Daniel Kalchev | 2003-02-14 08:19:15 | Re: [HACKERS] Changing the default configuration |
Previous Message | Daniel Kalchev | 2003-02-14 07:55:12 | Re: [HACKERS] Changing the default configuration |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Michael Paesold | 2003-02-14 08:15:23 | Re: Brain dump: btree collapsing |
Previous Message | Daniel Kalchev | 2003-02-14 07:55:12 | Re: [HACKERS] Changing the default configuration |