It would be nice to have something that could suggest settings for the different *cost* options.
On 18 Jun 2003, matt wrote: > Are there really any performance settings of much interest beyond the > shared and non-shared memory settings? Beyond those the interactions > get so complex that automation is probably impossible anyway, and > certain options like fsync = false should never be 'recommended'. > > On the other hand, a way of empirically deriving some 'correct' > optimizer parameters for a given machine would be very nice :-) > > > Matt > > > On Wed, 2003-06-18 at 18:07, Tom Lane wrote: > > Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > Sure, it would be great if we could do it. > > > > If the program actually derives reliable numbers, it would be great. > > It could easily do more harm than good if it gives bogus results. > > I think it will be very hard to get reliable rather than bogus results > > :-( ... but feel free to try. > > > > regards, tom lane > > > > ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- > > TIP 6: Have you searched our list archives? > > > > http://archives.postgresql.org > > > > > ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- > TIP 9: the planner will ignore your desire to choose an index scan if your > joining column's datatypes do not match > ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 8: explain analyze is your friend
