X-Original-To: pgsql-performance-postgresql.org@localhost.postgresql.org Received: from localhost (developer.postgresql.org [64.117.224.193]) by svr1.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E0545B43163 for ; Fri, 4 Jul 2003 14:35:09 +0000 (GMT) Received: from svr1.postgresql.org ([64.117.224.193]) by localhost (svr1.postgresql.org [64.117.224.193]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 07618-01 for ; Fri, 4 Jul 2003 11:34:59 -0300 (ADT) Received: from mwinf0601.wanadoo.fr (smtp3.wanadoo.fr [193.252.22.25]) by svr1.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 12160B4316A for ; Fri, 4 Jul 2003 11:34:58 -0300 (ADT) Received: from Paris (ABoulogne-110-1-4-48.w81-49.abo.wanadoo.fr [81.49.7.48]) by mwinf0601.wanadoo.fr (SMTP Server) with ESMTP id 126CD340012E; Fri, 4 Jul 2003 16:35:02 +0200 (CEST) Reply-To: From: "Michael Mattox" To: "Andrew Sullivan" , Subject: Re: PostgreSQL vs. MySQL Date: Fri, 4 Jul 2003 16:35:03 +0200 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2911.0) X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165 In-Reply-To: <20030704142800.GC4592@libertyrms.info> Importance: Normal X-Archive-Number: 200307/66 X-Sequence-Number: 2359 > This appears to be a "yes" answer to my question above. Out of the > box, PostgreSQL is set up to be able to run on a 1992-vintage SGI > Indy with 8 M of RAM (ok, I may be exaggerating, but only by a bit); > it is not tuned for performance. Running without even tweaking the > shared buffers is guaranteed to get you lousy performance. 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. In my opinion the defaults should be set up for a typical database server machine. Michael