Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: [GENERAL] Multiple Indexing, performance impact

From: Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>, Daniel Åkerud <zilch(at)home(dot)se>, PostgreSQL Development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: [GENERAL] Multiple Indexing, performance impact
Date: 2001-06-23 16:32:17
Message-ID: Pine.LNX.4.30.0106231802400.724-100000@peter.localdomain (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Lists: pgsql-generalpgsql-hackers
Tom Lane writes:

> Would you suggest that we have no default at all, and make users pick
> something?

No.  I'm concerned that PostgreSQL should work out of the box for
everyone.  And I would prefer that PostgreSQL works the same on every
platform out of the box.  Obviously we've already lost this on systems
where the default shmmax is 512kB (SCO OpenServer, Unixware) or 1 MB
(Solaris), and reducing the parameters is clearly not an option.  But if a
plurality of systems have the default set at 4 MB or 8 MB then we should
stop there so we don't upset a large fraction of users.

Btw., do we have any data on how appropriate wal_buffers = 8 is?

Peter Eisentraut   peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net

In response to


pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Olivier PRENANTDate: 2001-06-23 16:49:38
Subject: Re: psql+openssl+uniware7
Previous:From: Peter EisentrautDate: 2001-06-23 15:53:03
Subject: Re: Setuid functions

pgsql-general by date

Next:From: Svenne KrapDate: 2001-06-23 17:04:22
Subject: Re: Speed...
Previous:From: Tom LaneDate: 2001-06-23 15:56:03
Subject: Re: Speed...

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2017 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group