Received: from localhost (maia-5.hub.org [200.46.204.182]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C20829FB9C4 for ; Thu, 8 Mar 2007 17:02:17 -0400 (AST) Received: from postgresql.org ([200.46.204.71]) by localhost (mx1.hub.org [200.46.204.182]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 20253-07 for ; Thu, 8 Mar 2007 17:02:08 -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 A00249FBB6C for ; Thu, 8 Mar 2007 17:02:10 -0400 (AST) Received: (qmail 26517 invoked by uid 2020); 8 Mar 2007 13:02:09 -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 13:02:09 -0800 Message-ID: <45F07B08.7070703@modgraph-usa.com> Date: Thu, 08 Mar 2007 13:07:20 -0800 From: "Craig A. James" User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.10 (X11/20070221) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Carlos Moreno CC: PostgreSQL Performance 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> <45F0571E.20501@modgraph-usa.com> <45F0654D.8040800@mochima.com> In-Reply-To: <45F0654D.8040800@mochima.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=3.003 tagged_above=0 required=5 tests=AWL, BAYES_50, HELO_DYNAMIC_IPADDR2 X-Spam-Level: *** X-Archive-Number: 200703/177 X-Sequence-Number: 23582 Carlos, > Now, yet another thing that you (Craig) seem to be missing: you're > simply putting the expense of all this time under the expenses column > in exchange for solving the particular problem... More like I was trying to keep my response short ;-). I think we're all in agreement on pretty much everything: 1. Understand your problem 2. Find potential solutions 3. Find the technical, economic AND situational tradeoffs 4. Choose the best course of action My original comment was directed at item #3. I was trying to remind everyone that a simple cost analysis may point to solutions that simply aren't possible, given business constraints. I know we also agree that we should constantly fight corporate stupidity and short-sighted budgetary oversight. But that's a second battle, one that goes on forever. Sometimes you just have to get the job done within the current constraints. 'Nuff said. Craig