"Dann Corbit" <DCorbit@connx.com> writes:
>> I think the idea that there IS a magic number is the problem.
>>
>> No amount of testing is ever going to refute the argument that, under
>> some other workload, a different value might better.
>>
>> But that doesn't amount to a reason to leave it the way it is.
> Perhaps a table of experimental data could serve as a rough guideline.
The problem is not that anyone wants to leave it the way it is.
The problem is that no one has done even a lick of work to identify
a specific number that is demonstrably better than others -- on *any*
scale. How about fewer complaints and more effort?
regards, tom lane
