Re: Simple postgresql.conf wizard

From: "Robert Haas" <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com
Cc: "Greg Smith" <gsmith(at)gregsmith(dot)com>, "Josh Berkus" <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Simple postgresql.conf wizard
Date: 2008-12-03 20:21:20
Message-ID: 603c8f070812031221n6bc0cbcay7de4c1404ea31873@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

>> I'm not sure what "mixed" mode is supposed to be, but based on what
>> I've seen so far, I'm a skeptical of the idea that encouraging people
>> to raise default_statistics_target to 50 and turn on
>> constraint_exclusion is reasonable.
>
> Why?

Because both of those settings are strictly worse for my database than
the defaults. I don't have any partitioned tables, and see:

http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2008-11/msg01837.php

>> I'm also a bit surprised that
>> there doesn't seem to be anything here that depends on the size of the
>> database, even order-of-magnitude. It seems like the right value for
>> checkpoint_segments, at least, might depend on that.
>
> What does checkpoint_segments have to do with the size of the database?

It seems unlikely that you would want 256 MB of checkpoint segments on
a database that is only 100 MB (or even 500 MB). But you might very
well want that on a database that is 1 TB.

...Robert

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Gregory Stark 2008-12-03 20:37:00 Re: Simple postgresql.conf wizard
Previous Message Heikki Linnakangas 2008-12-03 20:20:48 Re: snapshot leak and core dump with serializable transactions