| From: | Paul Thomas <paul(at)tmsl(dot)demon(dot)co(dot)uk> |
|---|---|
| To: | Cestmir Hybl <cestmirl(at)freeside(dot)sk> |
| Cc: | pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: MySQL vs PG TPC-H benchmarks |
| Date: | 2004-04-21 14:08:09 |
| Message-ID: | 20040421150809.C23015@bacon |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-performance |
On 21/04/2004 14:31 Cestmir Hybl wrote:
> > Looks like he's using the default postgresql.conf settings in which
> case
> > I'm not suprised at pg looking so slow.
>
> The question also is, IMHO, why the hell, postgreSQL still comes out of
> the
> box with so stupid configuration defaults, totally underestimated for
> todays
> average hardware configuration (1+GHz, 0.5+GB RAM, fast FSB, fast HDD).
>
> It seems to me better strategy to force that 1% of users to "downgrade"
> cfg.
> than vice-versa.
>
> regards
> ch
>
This has been discussed many times before. Check the archives.
--
Paul Thomas
+------------------------------+---------------------------------------------+
| Thomas Micro Systems Limited | Software Solutions for
Business |
| Computer Consultants |
http://www.thomas-micro-systems-ltd.co.uk |
+------------------------------+---------------------------------------------+
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Stephan Szabo | 2004-04-21 14:31:27 | Re: slow seqscan |
| Previous Message | Cestmir Hybl | 2004-04-21 13:31:02 | Re: MySQL vs PG TPC-H benchmarks |