Received: from localhost (maia-2.hub.org [200.46.204.187]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 64DBF9FC155 for ; Thu, 21 Jun 2007 12:12:37 -0300 (ADT) Received: from postgresql.org ([200.46.204.71]) by localhost (mx1.hub.org [200.46.204.187]) (amavisd-maia, port 10024) with ESMTP id 71165-06 for ; Thu, 21 Jun 2007 12:12:34 -0300 (ADT) X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.5 Received: from exchange.g2switchworks.com (mail.g2switchworks.com [38.98.183.40]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0D6799FC10F for ; Thu, 21 Jun 2007 12:12:33 -0300 (ADT) Received: from [10.10.1.37] ([10.10.1.37]) by exchange.g2switchworks.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Thu, 21 Jun 2007 10:12:33 -0500 Message-ID: <467A9561.9060706@g2switchworks.com> Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2007 10:12:33 -0500 From: Scott Marlowe User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.4 (X11/20060516) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Greg Smith CC: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org Subject: Re: PostgreSQL Configuration Tool for Dummies References: <200706191254.09777.josh@agliodbs.com> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-OriginalArrivalTime: 21 Jun 2007 15:12:33.0100 (UTC) FILETIME=[97B748C0:01C7B416] X-Virus-Scanned: Maia Mailguard 1.0.1 X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.321 tagged_above=0 required=5 tests=AWL=0.320, BAYES_50=0.001 X-Spam-Level: X-Archive-Number: 200706/467 X-Sequence-Number: 25500 Greg Smith wrote: > On Tue, 19 Jun 2007, Josh Berkus wrote: > >> I don't think the "mostly reads / mostly writes" question covers >> anything, >> nor is it likely to produce accurate answers. Instead, we need to >> ask the >> users to characterize what type of application they are running: >> T1) Please characterize the general type of workload you will be >> running on >> this database. Choose one of the following four... > > 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. Generally I agree, however, how about a first switch, for beginner / intermediate / advanced. The choice you make determines how much detail we ask you about your setup. Beginners get two or three simple questions, intermediate a handful, and advanced gets grilled on everything. Then, just write the beginner and maybe intermediate to begin with and ghost out the advanced until it's ready.