| From: | Gregory Stark <stark(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Greg Smith <gsmith(at)gregsmith(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Simple postgresql.conf wizard |
| Date: | 2008-12-04 01:15:04 |
| Message-ID: | 87prk8oi5j.fsf@oxford.xeocode.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Greg Smith <gsmith(at)gregsmith(dot)com> writes:
> Is it worse to suffer from additional query overhead if you're sloppy with
> the tuning tool, or to discover addition partitions didn't work as you
> expected?
Surely that's the same question we faced when deciding what the Postgres
default should be?
That and the unstated other question "Is someone more likely to use partitions
without reading the manual or not use partitions without reading the manual
about the down-sides of constraint_exclusion (in the partitioning
section....)"
--
Gregory Stark
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
Ask me about EnterpriseDB's PostGIS support!
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2008-12-04 01:17:43 | Re: Simple postgresql.conf wizard |
| Previous Message | Gregory Stark | 2008-12-04 01:11:33 | Re: Simple postgresql.conf wizard |