Received: from localhost (maia-1.hub.org [200.46.204.191]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8CF879FBE72 for ; Thu, 8 Mar 2007 14:29:08 -0400 (AST) Received: from postgresql.org ([200.46.204.71]) by localhost (mx1.hub.org [200.46.204.191]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 03946-01 for ; Thu, 8 Mar 2007 14:29:01 -0400 (AST) X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.4 Received: from 66-226-76-106.dedicated.abac.net (66-226-76-106.dedicated.abac.net [66.226.76.106]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BAD0E9FBE85 for ; Thu, 8 Mar 2007 14:28:57 -0400 (AST) Received: (qmail 21350 invoked by uid 2020); 8 Mar 2007 10:28:56 -0800 Received: from wsip-70-167-125-69.sd.sd.cox.net (HELO ?192.168.0.3?) (70.167.125.69) by 192.168.0.4 with (DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA encrypted) SMTP; 8 Mar 2007 10:28:56 -0800 Message-ID: <45F0571E.20501@modgraph-usa.com> Date: Thu, 08 Mar 2007 10:34:06 -0800 From: "Craig A. James" User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.10 (X11/20070221) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Rodrigo Madera CC: PostgreSQL Performance , Alex Deucher Subject: Re: strange performance regression between 7.4 and 8.1 References: <2D7248A6-38DB-4FE2-A570-6476D5985E85@event-s.net> <26FE4DE3-7896-4A8F-B26A-4FCDA1890078@event-s.net> <3cf983d0703080423x7d2e57d4w52d883f6812d3031@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <3cf983d0703080423x7d2e57d4w52d883f6812d3031@mail.gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Virus-Scanned: Maia Mailguard 1.0.1 X-Spam-Status: No, hits=3.025 tagged_above=0 required=5 tests=AWL, BAYES_50, HELO_DYNAMIC_IPADDR2 X-Spam-Level: *** X-Archive-Number: 200703/170 X-Sequence-Number: 23575 Rodrigo Madera wrote: > I would just like to note here that this is an example of inefficient > strategy. > > We could all agree (up to a certain economical point) that Alex saved > the most expensive one thousand dollars of his life. > > I don't know the financial status nor the size of your organization, but > I'm sure that you have selected the path that has cost you more. > > In the future, an investment on memory for a (let's say) rather small > database should be your first attempt. Alex may have made the correct, rational choice, given the state of accounting at most corporations. Corporate accounting practices and the budgetary process give different weights to cash and labor. Labor is fixed, and can be grossly wasted without (apparently) affecting the quarterly bottom line. Cash expenditures come directly off profits. It's shortsighted and irrational, but nearly 100% of corporations operate this way. You can waste a week of your time and nobody complains, but spend a thousand dollars, and the company president is breathing down your neck. When we answer a question on this forum, we need to understand that the person who needs help may be under irrational, but real, constraints, and offer appropriate advice. Sure, it's good to fight corporate stupidity, but sometimes you just want to get the system back online. Craig