| From: | matt <matt(at)ymogen(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | pgsql-admin(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: PostgreSQL calibration |
| Date: | 2003-06-18 17:36:44 |
| Message-ID: | 1055957804.3900.52.camel@gibraltar.mattclark.net |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-admin pgsql-general |
Are there really any performance settings of much interest beyond the
shared and non-shared memory settings? Beyond those the interactions
get so complex that automation is probably impossible anyway, and
certain options like fsync = false should never be 'recommended'.
On the other hand, a way of empirically deriving some 'correct'
optimizer parameters for a given machine would be very nice :-)
Matt
On Wed, 2003-06-18 at 18:07, Tom Lane wrote:
> Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:
> > Sure, it would be great if we could do it.
>
> If the program actually derives reliable numbers, it would be great.
> It could easily do more harm than good if it gives bogus results.
> I think it will be very hard to get reliable rather than bogus results
> :-( ... but feel free to try.
>
> regards, tom lane
>
> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 6: Have you searched our list archives?
>
> http://archives.postgresql.org
>
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | scott.marlowe | 2003-06-18 17:42:11 | Re: PostgreSQL calibration |
| Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2003-06-18 17:28:30 | Re: postgreSQL 7.3.3 crashing on server with Itanium processor... |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Ivar | 2003-06-18 17:37:32 | Re: Is it bug ? |
| Previous Message | scott.marlowe | 2003-06-18 17:32:04 | Re: A creepy story about dates. How to prevent it? |