From: Shridhar Daithankar <shridhar_daithankar@persistent.co.in>
To: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: PostgreSQL vs. MySQL
Date: Fri, 4 Jul 2003 20:58:12 +0530
User-Agent: KMail/1.5.2
References: <20030704142800.GC4592@libertyrms.info>
	<CJEBLDCHAADCLAGIGCOOEEDMCLAA.michael.mattox@verideon.com>
	<20030704152620.GA4707@libertyrms.info>
In-Reply-To: <20030704152620.GA4707@libertyrms.info>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
  charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
Message-Id: <200307042058.12373.shridhar_daithankar@nospam.persistent.co.in>

On Friday 04 July 2003 20:56, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
> 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?

There was a proposal to ship various postgresql.conf.sample like one for large 
servers, one for medium, one for update intensive purpose etc.

I was thinking over it. Actaully we could tweak initdb script to be 
interactiev and get inputs from users and tune it accordingly. Of course it 
would be nowhere near the admin reading the docs. but at least it won't fall 
flat on performance groundas the way falls now.

 Shridhar