Received: from localhost (maia-4.hub.org [200.46.204.183]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 073A49FBCEE for ; Tue, 26 Jun 2007 12:25:47 -0300 (ADT) Received: from postgresql.org ([200.46.204.71]) by localhost (mx1.hub.org [200.46.204.183]) (amavisd-maia, port 10024) with ESMTP id 88795-03 for ; Tue, 26 Jun 2007 12:25:41 -0300 (ADT) X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.5 Received: from davinci.ethosmedia.com (server227.ethosmedia.com [209.128.84.227]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 00C0C9FBCE4 for ; Tue, 26 Jun 2007 12:25:40 -0300 (ADT) X-EthosMedia-Virus-Scanned: no infections found Received: from [63.195.55.98] (account josh@agliodbs.com HELO [192.168.2.3]) by davinci.ethosmedia.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 4.1.8) with ESMTP id 12498678 for pgsql-performance@postgresql.org; Tue, 26 Jun 2007 08:29:49 -0700 From: Josh Berkus Organization: PostgreSQL @ Sun To: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org Subject: Re: PostgreSQL Configuration Tool for Dummies Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2007 08:26:28 -0700 User-Agent: KMail/1.8.2 References: <200706191254.09777.josh@agliodbs.com> In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200706260826.28935.josh@agliodbs.com> X-Virus-Scanned: Maia Mailguard 1.0.1 X-Archive-Number: 200706/599 X-Sequence-Number: 25632 Greg, > We've hashed through this area before, but for Lance's benefit I'll > reiterate my dissenting position on this subject. If you're building a > "tool for dummies", my opinion is that you shouldn't ask any of this > information. I think there's an enormous benefit to providing something > that takes basic sizing information and gives conservative guidelines > based on that--as you say, "safe, middle-of-the-road values"--that are > still way, way more useful than the default values. The risk in trying to > make a complicated tool that satisfies all the users Josh is aiming his > more sophisticated effort at is that you'll lose the newbies. The problem is that there are no "safe, middle-of-the-road" values for some things, particularly max_connections and work_mem. Particularly, there are very different conf profiles between reporting applications and OLTP/Web. We're talking about order-of-magnitude differences here, not just a few points. e.g.: Web app, typical machine: max_connections = 200 work_mem = 256kb default_statistics_target=100 autovacuum=on Reporting app, same machine: max_connections = 20 work_mem = 32mb default_statistics_target=500 autovacuum=off Possibly we could make the language of the "application type" selection less technical, but I don't see it as dispensible even for a basic tool. > I wouldn't even bother asking how many CPUs somebody has for what Lance is > building. The kind of optimizations you'd do based on that are just too > complicated to expect a tool to get them right and still be accessible to > a novice. CPUs affects the various cpu_cost parameters, but I can but the idea that this should only be part of the "advanced" tool. -- Josh Berkus PostgreSQL @ Sun San Francisco