From: Andrew Dunstan <andrew@dunslane.net>
To: Jim C. Nasby <jnasby@pervasive.com>
Cc: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Cc: Jonah H. Harris <jonah.harris@gmail.com>
Cc: John DeSoi <desoi@pgedit.com>
Cc: Pgsql Hackers <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: Google SoC--Idea Request
Date: Tue, 25 Apr 2006 15:13:15 +0930
Message-ID: <444DB6F3.6000504@dunslane.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20060425050017.GC81249@pervasive.com>
References: <20060417205455.GP49405@pervasive.com>
<44452F9C.8000401@osdl.org>
<AB8B2106-EA96-4577-845B-6604CC140AEC@pgedit.com>
<36e682920604190909p68649a35m1953a7b4262b8852@mail.gmail.com>
<20060423214524.GC4775@surnet.cl>
<36e682920604231522w96183d0mbedfd7c70d574b58@mail.gmail.com>
<20060424165112.GD38186@pervasive.com>
<8743.1145932591@sss.pgh.pa.us>
<36e682920604241956s2bdd8880q2c479740d893c6fd@mail.gmail.com>
<9008.1145934318@sss.pgh.pa.us>
<20060425050017.GC81249@pervasive.com>
Jim C. Nasby wrote:
>On Mon, Apr 24, 2006 at 11:05:18PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>
>
>>"Jonah H. Harris" <jonah.harris@gmail.com> writes:
>>
>>
>>>While the student could do some benchmarking on relatively new
>>>hardware and make suggestions, I agree with Tom. Having to keep
>>>support for older platforms doesn't leave much flexibility to change
>>>the defaults.
>>>
>>>
>>Another point here is that the defaults *are* reasonable for development
>>and for small installations; the people who are complaining are the ones
>>who expect to run terabyte databases without any tuning. (I exaggerate
>>perhaps, but the point is valid.)
>>
>>We've talked more than once about offering multiple alternative
>>starting-point postgresql.conf files to give people an idea of what to
>>do for small/medium/large installations. MySQL have done that for years
>>and it doesn't seem that users are unable to cope with the concept.
>>But doing this is (a) mostly a matter of testing and documenting, not
>>coding and (b) probably too small for a SoC project anyway.
>>
>>
>
>My recollection was that there was opposition to offering multiple
>config files, but that there was a proposal to make initdb smarter about
>picking configuration values.
>
>Personally, I agree that multiple config files would be fine. Or a
>really fancy solution would be feeding a config option to initdb and
>have it generate an appropriate postgresql.conf.
>
>
We have already done some initdb tuning improvements for 8.2 - shared
buffers now tops out at 4000 instead of 1000 and initdb now sets
max_fsm_pages at a more realistic level. (top is 200,000 instead of
previously hardcoded 20,000).
I would have liked to increase max_connections too, but that would have
caused problems on OSX, apparently. See previous discussion.
Personally I would much rather see a tuning advisor tool in more general
use than just provide small/medium/large config setting files.
cheers
andrew
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Reply to all the recipients using the --to and --cc options:
reply via email
To: pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
Cc: andrew@dunslane.net, jnasby@pervasive.com, tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us, jonah.harris@gmail.com, desoi@pgedit.com
Subject: Re: Google SoC--Idea Request
In-Reply-To: <444DB6F3.6000504@dunslane.net>
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
This inbox is served by DDX for PostgreSQL; see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox