Re: Simple postgresql.conf wizard

Поиск
Список
Период
Сортировка
От Joshua D. Drake
Тема Re: Simple postgresql.conf wizard
Дата
Msg-id 1228332248.27483.134.camel@jd-laptop.pragmaticzealot.org
обсуждение исходный текст
Ответ на Re: Simple postgresql.conf wizard  ("Robert Haas" <robertmhaas@gmail.com>)
Ответы Re: Simple postgresql.conf wizard  ("Robert Haas" <robertmhaas@gmail.com>)
Re: Simple postgresql.conf wizard  (Gregory Stark <stark@enterprisedb.com>)
Список pgsql-hackers
On Wed, 2008-12-03 at 13:30 -0500, Robert Haas wrote:
> > Looks like I need to add Python 2.5+Linux to my testing set.  I did not
> > expect that the UNIX distributions of Python 2.5 would ship with wintypes.py
> > at all.  I think I can fix this on the spot though.  On line 40, you'll find
> > this bit:
> >
> > except ImportError:
> >
> > Change that to the following:
> >
> > except ImportError,ValueError:
> 
> That didn't work, same error message.
> 
> > And it should pass that point.  If it doesn't, you can try the completely
> > general:
> >
> > except:
> 
> That worked.
> 
> The settings that this initially spit out (I guess it defaults to
> "mixed" mode) didn't look too sane to me, because as discussed
> elsewhere on this thread 50 is not a reasonable value for
> default_statistics_target for my installation.  It also wanted to set
> constraint_exclusion to on, which I'm pretty confident is useless.
> 
> Then I tried "-T web" and got what seemed like a more reasonable set
> of values.  But I wasn't sure I needed that many connections, so I
> added "-c 150" to see how much difference that made.  Kaboom!
> 
> $ ./pgtune -i ~postgres/data/postgresql.conf -T web -c 150
> Traceback (most recent call last):
>   File "./pgtune", line 463, in <module>
>     wizardTune(config,options,settings)
>   File "./pgtune", line 403, in wizardTune
>     'web':mem/con, 'oltp':mem/con,'dw':mem/con/2,
> TypeError: unsupported operand type(s) for /: 'int' and 'str'
> 
> 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?

>   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?

Joshua D. Drake




> 
> ...Robert
> 
-- 
PostgreSQL  Consulting, Development, Support, Training  503-667-4564 - http://www.commandprompt.com/  The PostgreSQL
Company,serving since 1997
 



В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления:

Предыдущее
От: Heikki Linnakangas
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: Visibility map, partial vacuums
Следующее
От: Emmanuel Cecchet
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: Transactions and temp tables