Subject: Re: go for a script! / ex:  PostgreSQL vs. MySQL
From: Rod Taylor <rbt@rbt.ca>
To: Sean Chittenden <sean@chittenden.org>
Cc: Vivek Khera <khera@kcilink.com>,
	Postgresql Performance <pgsql-performance@postgresql.org>
In-Reply-To: <20031010225924.GC8664@perrin.nxad.com>
References: <007901c38f2b$0b585590$2802a8c0@webbased10>
	<200310101034.52073.josh@agliodbs.com> <3F86F5BB.90605@chuckie.co.uk>
	<x7wubcon3h.fsf@yertle.int.kciLink.com>
	<20031010225924.GC8664@perrin.nxad.com>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1;
	protocol="application/pgp-signature";
	boundary="=-rNA2OK2rGeTZoh4whapq"
Message-Id: <1065837333.12875.1.camel@jester>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Date: Fri, 10 Oct 2003 21:55:34 -0400

--=-rNA2OK2rGeTZoh4whapq
Content-Type: text/plain
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Fri, 2003-10-10 at 18:59, Sean Chittenden wrote:
> > NB> So far:
> >=20
> > NB> shared_buffers =3D 1/16th of total memory
> > NB> effective_cache_size =3D 80% of the supposed kernel cache.
> >=20
> > Please take into account the blocksize compiled into PG, too...
>=20
> Would anyone object to a patch that exports the blocksize via a
> readonly GUC?  Too many tunables are page dependant, which is
> infuriating when copying configs from DB to DB.  I wish pgsql had some
> notion of percentages for values that end with a '%'.

Rather than showing the block size, how about we change the tunables to
be physical sizes rather than block based?

        effective_cache_size =3D 1.5GB
        shared_buffers =3D 25MB

Percentages would be slick as well, but doing the above should fix most
of the issue -- and be friendlier to read.

--=-rNA2OK2rGeTZoh4whapq
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc
Content-Description: This is a digitally signed message part

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.3 (FreeBSD)

iD8DBQA/h2MV6DETLow6vwwRArg5AJ9OnAlnLPtk4Nua+zUgBCLUUGiscACdF/ZR
vpySO7LXPMhdrmTznWEqOsA=
=eYRm
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--=-rNA2OK2rGeTZoh4whapq--