-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
> Your argument seems to be "this produces nice results for me", not
> "I have done experiments to measure the actual value of the parameter
> and it is X". I *have* done experiments of that sort, which is where
> the default of 4 came from. I rema
Tom Lane wrote:
"Greg Sabino Mullane" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
N.B. My own personal starting default is 2, but I thought 3 was a nice
middle ground more likely to reach consensus here. :)
Your argument seems to be "this produces nice results for me", not
"I have done experiments to measure the
"Greg Sabino Mullane" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> N.B. My own personal starting default is 2, but I thought 3 was a nice
> middle ground more likely to reach consensus here. :)
Your argument seems to be "this produces nice results for me", not
"I have done experiments to measure the actual value
On Mar 15, 2005, at 6:35 AM, Greg Sabino Mullane wrote:
Granted, I don't work on
any huge, complex, hundreds of gig databases, but that supports my
point -
if you are really better off with a /higher/ (than 3)
random_page_cost, you
already should be tweaking a lot of stuff yourself anyway.
I thin
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Josh Berkus wrote:
> I don't agree. The defaults are there for people who aren't going to read
> enough of the documentation to set them. As such, conservative for the
> defaults is appropriate.
Sure, but I would argue that 4 is *too* conservative
