Precisely. Any hints from the real gurus out there as to how that might be accomplished (or alternatively, reasons why it's hopeless)?
On Wed, 2003-06-18 at 18:42, scott.marlowe wrote: > It would be nice to have something that could suggest settings for the > different *cost* options. > > On 18 Jun 2003, matt wrote: > > > Are there really any performance settings of much interest beyond the > > shared and non-shared memory settings? Beyond those the interactions > > get so complex that automation is probably impossible anyway, and > > certain options like fsync = false should never be 'recommended'. > > > > On the other hand, a way of empirically deriving some 'correct' > > optimizer parameters for a given machine would be very nice :-) > > > > > > Matt > > > > > > On Wed, 2003-06-18 at 18:07, Tom Lane wrote: > > > Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > > Sure, it would be great if we could do it. > > > > > > If the program actually derives reliable numbers, it would be great. > > > It could easily do more harm than good if it gives bogus results. > > > I think it will be very hard to get reliable rather than bogus results > > > :-( ... but feel free to try. > > > > > > regards, tom lane > > > > > > ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- > > > TIP 6: Have you searched our list archives? > > > > > > http://archives.postgresql.org > > > > > > > > > ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- > > TIP 9: the planner will ignore your desire to choose an index scan if your > > joining column's datatypes do not match > > > > > ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- > TIP 8: explain analyze is your friend > ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 5: Have you checked our extensive FAQ? http://www.postgresql.org/docs/faqs/FAQ.html
