On Fri, Oct 3, 2014 at 3:10 PM, Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> wrote:
On Fri, Oct 3, 2014 at 02:07:45PM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote: > On Fri, Oct 3, 2014 at 03:00:56PM -0300, Arthur Silva wrote: > > I remember Informix had a setting that had no description except "try > > different values to see if it helps performance" --- we don't want to do > > that. > > > > What if we emit a server message if the setting is too low? That's how > > we handle checkpoint_segments. > > > > Not all GUC need to be straight forward to tune. > > If the gains are worthy I don't see any reason not to have it. > > Every GUC add complexity to the system because people have to understand > it to know if they should tune it. No GUC is zero-cost.
Please see my blog post about the cost of adding GUCs:
That's true Bruce (nice post, it was a good reading). But how can we ignore 25%+ improvements (from 8 to 24)? At very least we should delivery some pretty good defaults.
