Re: About the default performance - Mailing list pgsql-advocacy
From | scott.marlowe |
---|---|
Subject | Re: About the default performance |
Date | |
Msg-id | Pine.LNX.4.33.0307071159080.4748-100000@css120.ihs.com Whole thread Raw |
In response to | Re: About the default performance (Josh Berkus <josh@agliodbs.com>) |
Responses |
Re: About the default performance
|
List | pgsql-advocacy |
I'm willing to help too. I'm basically a DBA / developer type, with mild C hacking skills (I develop in PHP, so my C coding is quite rusty nowadays.) If nothing else testing on different equipment / OSes. On Fri, 4 Jul 2003, Josh Berkus wrote: > Kaarel: > > (cross-posted back to Performance because I don't want to post twice on the > same topic) > > > The problem is that people often benchmark the so called vanilla > > installation of PostgreSQL. > <snip> > > I remember a discussion in the general list about having multiple > > default conf files to choose from. Ala low-end, average and high-end > > installations. A tool to read some system information and dynamically > > generating a proper configuration file was also mentioned. > > Yes. So far, only Justin, Kevin B., Shridhar and I have volunteered to do any > work on that task -- and all of us have been swamped with 7.4-related stuff. > > I would like to see, before the end of the year, some if not all of the stuff > that Kaarel is posting about. Obviously, my first task is to set up a > framework so that everyone can contribute to the project. > > > I'm not an expert of PostgreSQL by any means I have just been reading > > PostgreSQL email lists for only about a month or so. So I believe I have > > read that there is a auto-vacuum being worked on? In my opinion this > > should be included in the main installation by default. This is just the > > kind of job that a machine should do...when a big portion of data has > > changed do VACUUM ANALYCE automagically. > > > > Is these improvements actually being implemented and how far are they? > > The auto-vacuum daemon (pgavd) is finished. However, it will still require > the user to turn it on; we don't want to run potentially RAM-sucking > background processes without user invitiation. So obviously that needs to be > part of a comprehensive "quick start" guide. > > So, Kaarel .... you want to write the "quick start" guide for 7.4? All of > the detail material is available online, you mainly need to provide narrative > and links of the form of ... first, read this: <link>, then do this ... > > > The technical side of these problems is not for this list of course. > > However the "side-effects" (reputation of being slow) of these problems > > direclty relate to advocacy and PostgreSQL popularity. Maybe these > > problems are already worked on or maybe I'm over exaggerating the > > situation but I do believe solving these issues would only benefit > > PostgreSQL. > > You're absolutely correct .... so let's do something about it. From my > perspective, the first step is improved docs, becuase we can have those out > by 7.4 release. > >
pgsql-advocacy by date: