| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Dann Corbit" <DCorbit(at)connx(dot)com> |
| Cc: | "Robert Haas" <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, "Bruce Momjian" <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, "Mark Wong" <markwkm(at)gmail(dot)com>, "Heikki Linnakangas" <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, "Gregory Stark" <stark(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, "Josh Berkus" <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>, "Greg Smith" <gsmith(at)gregsmith(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Simple postgresql.conf wizard |
| Date: | 2008-11-20 05:51:00 |
| Message-ID: | 26553.1227160260@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
"Dann Corbit" <DCorbit(at)connx(dot)com> writes:
>> I think the idea that there IS a magic number is the problem.
>>
>> No amount of testing is ever going to refute the argument that, under
>> some other workload, a different value might better.
>>
>> But that doesn't amount to a reason to leave it the way it is.
> Perhaps a table of experimental data could serve as a rough guideline.
The problem is not that anyone wants to leave it the way it is.
The problem is that no one has done even a lick of work to identify
a specific number that is demonstrably better than others -- on *any*
scale. How about fewer complaints and more effort?
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Devrim GÜNDÜZ | 2008-11-20 06:15:00 | Re: HEAD build failure on win32 mingw |
| Previous Message | Pavan Deolasee | 2008-11-20 05:36:21 | Re: [PATCHES] Infrastructure changes for recovery (v8) |