Peter Eisentraut wrote:
>
> mlw writes:
>
> > These are just ballpark settings, I don't even know how good they are. The problem
> > is that server environments differ so greatly that there is no right answer.
>
> Which is why this is clearly not a solution.
Sometimes an incomplete solution, or even a grossly poor solution, which
addresses a problem, is better than no solution what so ever.
>
> > I am just really concerned that the newbe PostgreSQL user will assume
> > the performance they see with the default settings are what they will
> > judge PostgreSQL.
>
> For this kind of "newbie", the kind that doesn't read the documentation,
> this would only make it worse, because they'd assume that by making the
> choice between three default configurations they've done an adequate
> amount of tuning. Basically, you'd exchange, "I can't find any tuning
> information, but it's slow" for "I did all the tuning and it's still
> slow". Not a good choice.
I think sort of thinking will not help the end user at all. Offering a choice
of three less badly tuned configuration files will probably produce a better
user experience than one very badly tuned file.
>
> The bottom line is that you *must* edit postgresql.conf in order to tune
> your server. If this editing is simplified it doesn't matter what the
> default is.
I don't think this is true at all. Making buffers and sort larger numbers, will
improve performance dramatically. I would also bet that most users NEVER see
the postgresql.conf file, and just blame poor performance on bad design and
start using MySQL.