On 11/11/2010 10:17 AM, Aidan Van Dyk wrote:
We should adopt that philosophy. I suggest we limit all tables in future to
1m rows in the interests of speed.
As long as it's configurable, and if it would make operations on
smaller tables faster, than go for it.
And we should by defualt limit shared_buffers to 32MB. Oh wait.
There are always tradeoffs when picking defaults, a-la-postgresql.conf.
We as a community are generally pretty quick to pick up the "defaults
are very conservative, make sure you tune ..." song when people
complain about "pg being too slow"
;-)
Well, I was of course being facetious. But since you mention it,
Postgres is conservative about its defaults because it's a server. I
don't think quite the same considerations apply to developer software
that will be running on a workstation. And Tom's complaint was about
what he saw as incorrect behavior. Our defaults might hurt performance,
but I don't think they trade speed for incorrect behavior.
Anyway, revenons à nos moutons.
cheers
andrew
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
