> What fun. I'm beginning to remember why nobody has ever managed to deliver > a community tool that helps with this configuration task before.
I have to say I really like this tool. It may not be perfect but it's a lot easier than trying to do this analysis from scratch. And we are really only arguing about a handful of settings. It wouldn't take a lot to convince me that checkpoint_segments=3 is too low. I easily blew through that testing the bulk-insert tuning patch. I'm curious why wal_buffers is being set to 512 * checkpoint_segments. Are they related? The default value for wal_buffers is only 64 kB, which means someone thought you shouldn't need much space for this at all, but this suggests a setting in the 4-32 MB range, an increase of ~2 orders of magnitude. For all I know that could be right but it's a big increase. Regarding the religious war now in progress, I think it would be awfully good for someone to offer some thoughts on how to figure out which particular columns on which particular tables need a higher statistics target. That might allow us to either (a) build a wizard that helps you find those problems that could perhaps be used alongside this one or (b) incorporate those same smarts into core. ...Robert -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
