| From: | Greg Stark <stark(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>, Mark Wong <markwkm(at)gmail(dot)com>, Greg Smith <gsmith(at)gregsmith(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Revisiting default_statistics_target |
| Date: | 2009-06-07 16:34:22 |
| Message-ID: | 4136ffa0906070934x11c98a37re0bfa3dfba4a8c64@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Sun, Jun 7, 2009 at 5:13 PM, Tom Lane<tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>
> In any case, what we seem to have here is evidence that there are some
> cases where the new default value of default_statistics_target is too
> high and you can get a benefit by lowering it. I'm not sure we should
> panic about that. Default values ought to be compromises. If people
> only ever change the default in one direction then it's probably not a
> very good compromise. We know that there are applications for which 100
> is still too low, so maybe now we have got the pain spread out roughly
> evenly...
I would be nice to get oprofile working and see results for various
target sizes.
I've had trouble with oprofile myself. I think some machines have
bogus rtc hardware or something related that prevents it from working
properly.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2009-06-07 16:36:03 | Re: pg_migrator issue with contrib |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2009-06-07 16:13:22 | Re: Revisiting default_statistics_target |