From: | usleepless(at)gmail(dot)com |
---|---|
To: | "Brian Hurt" <bhurt(at)janestcapital(dot)com> |
Cc: | "Brad Nicholson" <bnichols(at)ca(dot)afilias(dot)info>, "Lukas Kahwe Smith" <smith(at)pooteeweet(dot)org>, "Leif B(dot) Kristensen" <leif(at)solumslekt(dot)org>, pgsql-advocacy(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Postgres v MySQL 5.0 |
Date: | 2006-11-10 20:31:45 |
Message-ID: | c39ec84c0611101231r19edae7aj4ff8203565f7215e@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-advocacy |
Hi All,
On 11/10/06, Brian Hurt <bhurt(at)janestcapital(dot)com> wrote:
> The problem with this is that there is no "one size fits all"
> configuration I can think of. Using 4G of memory on a machine with 8G
> of memory and the machine is dedicated to postgres is maybe about right,
> if not underutilizing the machine. Using 4G of memory on a machine with
> 256M of memory which is mainly doing other things is bad.
>
> What might not be a bad idea is a configuration generator- a simple
> program that you can give small amount of information to (how much
> memory to use, how many concurrent connections, etc) and produces a
> reasonable configuration file. This wouldn't necessarily be an optimal
> configuration file, and real admins would probably still want to hand
> edit their configuration file. For example, I would have it just
> generate more or less acceptable values for autovacuuming. This would
> be newbie oriented program- newbies don't know anything about vacuuming,
> let alone autovacuuming.
>
> I don't think this would be that hard to write. Thoughts?
i agree. lots of times postgresql is perceived as slow, because of
out-of-the-box configuration. most importantly, the memory
configuration.
perhaps a "make tune" or "make tune 50%" or "make tune 75%".
and it should be mentioned in the README, along with the make-instructions.
there is also another funny thing, about an article mentioned before:
http://tweakers.net/reviews/649/7
this is a dutch slashdot-alike site, which runs on mysql. the article
is about a back-to-back test between pgsql-mysql on opteron and
ultrasparc hardware. very thorough and well tuned.
they clearly show that postgresql scales much better.
the funny thing is: they don't consider switching to postgresql
themselves, even though they suffered a slashdotting a couple of
months back. i can't imagine they never had corrupted tables. would it
be worthwhile to have a postgresql-advocacy officer to contact them?
regards,
usleep
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Chris Browne | 2006-11-10 20:53:56 | Re: Postgres v MySQL 5.0 |
Previous Message | Brad Nicholson | 2006-11-10 20:05:20 | Re: Postgres v MySQL 5.0 |