Date: Fri, 4 Jul 2003 11:26:20 -0400
From: Andrew Sullivan <andrew@libertyrms.info>
To: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: PostgreSQL vs. MySQL
Message-ID: <20030704152620.GA4707@libertyrms.info>
Mail-Followup-To: Andrew Sullivan <andrew@libertyrms.info>,
	pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
References: <20030704142800.GC4592@libertyrms.info>
	<CJEBLDCHAADCLAGIGCOOEEDMCLAA.michael.mattox@verideon.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CJEBLDCHAADCLAGIGCOOEEDMCLAA.michael.mattox@verideon.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.4i

On Fri, Jul 04, 2003 at 04:35:03PM +0200, Michael Mattox wrote:

> I see this as a major problem.  How many people run postgres, decide it's
> too slow and give up without digging into the documentation or coming to
> this group?  This seems to be pretty common.  Even worst, they tell 10
> others how slow Postgres is and then it gets a bad reputation.

There have been various proposals to do things of this sort.  But
there are always problems with it.  For instance, on many OSes,
Postgres would not run _at all_ when you first compiled it if its
defaults were set more agressively.  Then how many people would
complain, "It just doesn't work," and move on without asking about
it?

I cannot, for the life of me, understand how anyone can install some
software which is supposed to provide meaningful results under
production conditions, and not bother to read even the basic
"quickstart"-type stuff that is kicking around.  There is _no secret_
that Postgres is configured as a toy out of the box.  One presumes
that DBAs are hired to do _some_ little bit of work.

A

-- 
----
Andrew Sullivan                         204-4141 Yonge Street
Liberty RMS                           Toronto, Ontario Canada
<andrew@libertyrms.info>                              M2P 2A8
                                         +1 416 646 3304 x110