Re: PostgreSQL calibration

It would be nice to have something that could suggest settings for the
different *cost* options.

On 18 Jun 2003, matt wrote:

> 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
> >
>
>
> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 9: the planner will ignore your desire to choose an index scan if your
> joining column's datatypes do not match
>