Re: Changing the default configuration (was Re: [pgsql-advocacy] - Mailing list pgsql-hackers
From | Bruce Momjian |
---|---|
Subject | Re: Changing the default configuration (was Re: [pgsql-advocacy] |
Date | |
Msg-id | 200302180249.h1I2nVW06457@candle.pha.pa.us Whole thread Raw |
In response to | Re: Changing the default configuration (was Re: [pgsql-advocacy] (Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us>) |
Responses |
Re: Changing the default configuration (was Re: [pgsql-advocacy]
|
List | pgsql-hackers |
People seemed to like the idea: Add a script to ask system configuration questions and tune postgresql.conf. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Bruce Momjian wrote: > Peter Eisentraut wrote: > > Tom Lane writes: > > > > > Well, as I commented later in that mail, I feel that 1000 buffers is > > > a reasonable choice --- but I have to admit that I have no hard data > > > to back up that feeling. > > > > I know you like it in that range, and 4 or 8 MB of buffers by default > > should not be a problem. But personally I think if the optimal buffer > > size does not depend on both the physical RAM you want to dedicate to > > PostgreSQL and the nature and size of the database, then we have achieved > > a medium revolution in computer science. ;-) > > I have thought about this and I have an idea. Basically, increasing the > default values may get us closer, but it will discourage some to tweek, > and it will cause problems with some OS's that have small SysV params. > > So, my idea is to add a message at the end of initdb that states people > should run the pgtune script before running a production server. > > The pgtune script will basically allow us to query the user, test the OS > version and perhaps parameters, and modify postgresql.conf with > reasonable values. I think this is the only way to cleanly get folks > close to where they should be. > > For example, we can ask them how many rows and tables they will be > changing, on average, between VACUUM runs. That will allow us set the > FSM params. We can ask them about using 25% of their RAM for shared > buffers. If they have other major apps running on the server or have > small tables, we can make no changes. We can basically ask them > questions and use that info to set values. > > We can even ask about sort usage maybe and set sort memory. We can even > control checkpoint_segments this way if they say they will have high > database write activity and don't worry about disk space usage. We may > even be able to compute some random page cost estimate. > > Seems a script is going to be the best way to test values and assist > folks in making reasonable decisions about each parameter. Of course, > they can still edit the file, and we can ask them if they want > assistance to set each parameter or leave it alone. > > I would restrict the script to only deal with tuning values, and tell > people they still need to review that file for other useful parameters. > > Another option would be to make a big checklist or web page that asks > such questions and computes proper values, but it seems a script would > be easiest. We can even support '?' which would explain why the > question is being ask and how it affects the value. > > -- > Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us > pgman@candle.pha.pa.us | (610) 359-1001 > + If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road > + Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073 > > ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- > TIP 1: subscribe and unsubscribe commands go to majordomo@postgresql.org > -- Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us pgman@candle.pha.pa.us | (610) 359-1001 + If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road + Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073
pgsql-hackers by date: