From: | Frank Wiles <frank(at)wiles(dot)org> |
---|---|
To: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org> |
Cc: | rjpeace(at)earthlink(dot)net, yves(dot)vindevogel(at)implements(dot)be, pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Some help on buffers and other performance tricks |
Date: | 2005-11-10 00:54:50 |
Message-ID: | 20051109185450.2f20275d.frank@wiles.org |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-performance |
On Wed, 9 Nov 2005 21:43:33 -0300
Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org> wrote:
> Frank Wiles wrote:
>
> > Obviously there are systems/datasets/quantities where this won't
> > always work out best, but for the majority of systems out there
> > complicating your schema, maxing your hardware, and THEN tuning
> > is IMHO the wrong approach.
>
> I wasn't suggesting to complicate the schema -- I was actually
> thinking in systems where some queries are not using indexes, some
> queries are plain wrong, etc. Buying a very expensive RAID and then
> noticing that you just needed to create an index, is going to make
> somebody feel at least somewhat stupid.
Sorry I was referring to Ron statement that the first step should
be to "Optimize your schema to be as tight as possible."
But I agree, finding out you need an index after spending $$$ on
extra hardware would be bad. Especially if you have to explain it
to the person forking over the $$$! :)
---------------------------------
Frank Wiles <frank(at)wiles(dot)org>
http://www.wiles.org
---------------------------------
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Ron Peacetree | 2005-11-10 04:20:10 | Re: Some help on buffers and other performance tricks |
Previous Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2005-11-10 00:43:33 | Re: Some help on buffers and other performance tricks |