Re: Moving postgresql.conf tunables into 2003...

Список
Период
Сортировка
От Matthew Nuzum
Тема Re: Moving postgresql.conf tunables into 2003...
Дата
Msg-id 008301c34489$4dbf0b00$a322fea9@mattspc
обсуждение исходный текст
Ответ на Re: Moving postgresql.conf tunables into 2003...  (Andrew Sullivan)
Ответы Re: Moving postgresql.conf tunables into 2003...  ("Michael Mattox")
Re: Moving postgresql.conf tunables into 2003...  (Tom Lane)
Список pgsql-performance
Дерево обсуждения
Moving postgresql.conf tunables into 2003...  (Sean Chittenden, )
 Re: Moving postgresql.conf tunables into 2003...  (Rod Taylor, )
  Re: Moving postgresql.conf tunables into 2003...  (Sean Chittenden, )
 Re: Moving postgresql.conf tunables into 2003...  ("scott.marlowe", )
  Re: Moving postgresql.conf tunables into 2003...  (Brian Hirt, )
   Re: Moving postgresql.conf tunables into 2003...  (Sean Chittenden, )
    Re: Moving postgresql.conf tunables into 2003...  (Matthew Hixson, )
  Re: Moving postgresql.conf tunables into 2003...  (Sean Chittenden, )
   Re: Moving postgresql.conf tunables into 2003...  (Tom Lane, )
    Re: Moving postgresql.conf tunables into 2003...  (Sean Chittenden, )
 Re: Moving postgresql.conf tunables into 2003...  ("Michael Mattox", )
  Re: Moving postgresql.conf tunables into 2003...  (Sean Chittenden, )
   Re: Moving postgresql.conf tunables into 2003...  (Martin Foster, )
   Re: Moving postgresql.conf tunables into 2003...  (Bruce Momjian, )
 Re: Moving postgresql.conf tunables into 2003...  (Ron, )
 Re: Moving postgresql.conf tunables into 2003...  (Tom Lane, )
  Re: Moving postgresql.conf tunables into 2003...  (Sean Chittenden, )
   Re: Moving postgresql.conf tunables into 2003...  (Rod Taylor, )
   Re: Moving postgresql.conf tunables into 2003...  (Manfred Koizar, )
    Re: Moving postgresql.conf tunables into 2003...  (Sean Chittenden, )
     Re: Moving postgresql.conf tunables into 2003...  (Manfred Koizar, )
      Re: Moving postgresql.conf tunables into 2003...  (Sean Chittenden, )
       Re: Moving postgresql.conf tunables into 2003...  (Tom Lane, )
        Index correlation (was: Moving postgresql.conf tunables into 2003... )  (Manfred Koizar, )
     Use of multipart index with "IN"  (Rob Messer, )
      Re: Use of multipart index with "IN"  (Tom Lane, )
 Re: Moving postgresql.conf tunables into 2003...  (Josh Berkus, )
  Re: Moving postgresql.conf tunables into 2003...  (Tom Lane, )
  Re: Moving postgresql.conf tunables into 2003...  (Tom Lane, )
  Re: Moving postgresql.conf tunables into 2003...  (Tom Lane, )
  Re: Moving postgresql.conf tunables into 2003...  (Sean Chittenden, )
   Re: Moving postgresql.conf tunables into 2003...  (Josh Berkus, )
    Re: Moving postgresql.conf tunables into 2003...  (Sean Chittenden, )
     Re: Moving postgresql.conf tunables into 2003...  (Josh Berkus, )
   Re: Moving postgresql.conf tunables into 2003...  ("Matthew Nuzum", )
    Re: Moving postgresql.conf tunables into 2003...  (Michael Pohl, )
     Re: Moving postgresql.conf tunables into 2003...  (Martin Foster, )
     Re: Moving postgresql.conf tunables into 2003...  (Bruce Momjian, )
    Re: Moving postgresql.conf tunables into 2003...  (Chris Travers, )
     Re: Moving postgresql.conf tunables into 2003...  ("Jim C. Nasby", )
   Re: Moving postgresql.conf tunables into 2003...  (Andrew Sullivan, )
    Re: Moving postgresql.conf tunables into 2003...  ("Matthew Nuzum", )
     Re: Moving postgresql.conf tunables into 2003...  ("Michael Mattox", )
     Re: Moving postgresql.conf tunables into 2003...  (Tom Lane, )
      Re: Moving postgresql.conf tunables into 2003...  (Kaarel, )
       Re: Moving postgresql.conf tunables into 2003...  ("scott.marlowe", )
        Re: Moving postgresql.conf tunables into 2003...  (Martin Foster, )
  Re: Moving postgresql.conf tunables into 2003...  ("Matthew Nuzum", )
> -----Original Message-----
> From:  [mailto:pgsql-performance-
> ] On Behalf Of Andrew Sullivan
> Sent: Monday, July 07, 2003 5:23 AM
> To: 
> Subject: Re: [PERFORM] Moving postgresql.conf tunables into 2003...
>
> On Sat, Jul 05, 2003 at 02:12:56PM -0700, Sean Chittenden wrote:
> > The SGML docs aren't in the DBA's face and are way out of the way for
> > DBAs rolling out a new system or who are tuning the system.  SGML ==
> > Developer, conf == DBA.
>
> I could not disagree more.  I'd say more like, if the dba won't read
> the manual, get yourself a real dba.  Sorry, but so-called
> professionals who won't learn their tools have no home in my shop.
>

I don' want to come off confrontational, so please don't take this as an
attack.

Are you willing to say that the PostgreSQL database system should only be
used by DBAs?  I believe that Postgres is such a good and useful tool that
anyone should be able to start using it with little or no barrier to entry.

I don't believe I'm alone in this opinion either.  As a matter of fact, this
philosophy is being adopted by many in the software industry.  Note that
Linux and many other OSs that act as servers are being made more secure and
easier to use __out of the box__ so that a person can simply install from cd
and start using the tool with out too much difficulty.

Maybe your definition of "dba" is broader than mine and what you mean is,
"someone who installs a postgres database".  Also, by manual, are you
referring to the 213 page Administration guide, or are you talking about the
340 page Reference Manual?  Let us rephrase your statement like this: "If
the [person who installs a postgres database] won't read the [340 page
reference] manual, then that person should go find a different database to
use."

I think that the postgres installation procedure, .conf files and
documentation can be modified in such a way that a newbie (we were all
newbies once) can have a good "out of box experience" with little effort.
That means they can __quickly__ get a __good performing__ database up and
running with __little effort__ and without needing to subscribe to a mailing
list or read a book.

I have seen software projects that have what I call an "elitist" attitude;
meaning they expect you to be an expert or dedicated to their software in
order to use it.  Invariably this mentality stifles the usefulness of the
product.  It seems that there is a relative minority of people on this list
who feel that you have to be "elite" in order to have a good working
postgres installation.  I don't feel that should be a requirement or even a
consideration.

Matthew Nuzum        | Makers of "Elite Content Management System"
www.followers.net        | View samples of Elite CMS in action
    | http://www.followers.net/portfolio/



В списке pgsql-performance по дате отправления:

Предыдущее
От: Richard Huxton
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: Optimizer differences between 7.2 and 7.3
Следующее
От: Greg Stark
Дата:
Сообщение: optimizer picks smaller table to drive nested loops?