Personally, I think it is useful to have features. I quite understand the difficulties in maintaining some features however. Also having worked on internals for commercial DB engines, I have specifically how code/data paths can be shortened. I would not make the choice for someone to be forced into using a product in a specific manner. Instead, I would let them decide whether to choose a simple setup or, if they are up to it, something with better performance. I would not prune the options out. In doing so, we limit what a knowledgeable person can do a priori.
Jordan Henderson On Thursday 30 October 2003 19:59, Sailesh Krishnamurthy wrote: > >>>>> "Jordan" == Jordan Henderson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > Jordan> significantly better results. I would not say it requires > Jordan> considerable tuning, but an understanding of data, storage > Jordan> and access patterns. Additionally, these features did not > Jordan> cause our group considerable administrative overhead. > > I won't dispute the specifics. I have only worked on the DB2 engine - > never written an app for it nor administered it. You're right - the > bottomline is that you can get a significant performance advantage > provided you care enough to understand what's going on. > > Anyway, I merely responded to provide a data point. Will PostgreSQL > users/administrators care for additional knobs or is there a > preference for "keep it simple, stupid" ? ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 4: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
