On 11/11/2010 10:17 AM, Aidan Van Dyk wrote:
>
>> We should adopt that philosophy. I suggest we limit all tables in future to
>> 1m rows in the interests of speed.
> As long as it's configurable, and if it would make operations on
> smaller tables faster, than go for it.
>
> And we should by defualt limit shared_buffers to 32MB. Oh wait.
>
> There are always tradeoffs when picking defaults, a-la-postgresql.conf.
>
> We as a community are generally pretty quick to pick up the "defaults
> are very conservative, make sure you tune ..." song when people
> complain about "pg being too slow"
>
> ;-)
>
Well, I was of course being facetious. But since you mention it,
Postgres is conservative about its defaults because it's a server. I
don't think quite the same considerations apply to developer software
that will be running on a workstation. And Tom's complaint was about
what he saw as incorrect behavior. Our defaults might hurt performance,
but I don't think they trade speed for incorrect behavior.
Anyway, revenons à nos moutons.
cheers
andrew
