Re: MySQL versus Postgres - Mailing list pgsql-general

From Joshua D. Drake
Subject Re: MySQL versus Postgres
Date
Msg-id 1281659456.14004.426.camel@jd-desktop.unknown.charter.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: MySQL versus Postgres  (Greg Smith <greg@2ndquadrant.com>)
List pgsql-general
On Thu, 2010-08-12 at 20:01 -0400, Greg Smith wrote:
> Joshua D. Drake wrote:
> > "Can we just say in the docs say 25% of memory to shared_buffers"
> > Yes, in fact we can. With the caveat of Windows, the reality is this
> > isn't going to hurt nearly as much as a untuned version of PostgreSQL
> > will.
> >
>
> With modern servers often shipping with 72GB of RAM now,

No they aren't. Those are servers you and I will deal with. Not 98% of
the users, using PostgreSQL.

Heck you could even say, "On systems with less than 16GB", for systems
larger contact your PostgreSQL support professional.

The point is, this is solvable for the majority base. There are always
corner cases and 72GB of ram is an extreme corner case.

Joshua D. Drake

--
PostgreSQL.org Major Contributor
Command Prompt, Inc: http://www.commandprompt.com/ - 509.416.6579
Consulting, Training, Support, Custom Development, Engineering
http://twitter.com/cmdpromptinc | http://identi.ca/commandprompt

pgsql-general by date:

Previous
From: Greg Smith
Date:
Subject: Re: MySQL versus Postgres
Next
From: Tatsuo Ishii
Date:
Subject: Re: MySQL versus Postgres