On Wed, Sep 23, 2020 at 12:28:14AM +0200, tutiluren@xxxxxxxxxxxx wrote: > Sep 21, 2020, 7:53 PM by jd@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx: > See my comment about Google. The information is out there and easy to find. > > I guess I'm the worst idiot in the world, then, who can't DuckDuckGo (Google is > evil) it even after 15 years. > > Seriously, I didn't type my feedback "for fun". It may be difficult for very > intelligent people to understand (as often is the case, because you operate on > a whole different level), but the performance-related PostgreSQL configuration > options are a *nightmare* to me and many others. I spent *forever* reading > about them and couldn't make any sense of it all. Each time I tried, I would > give up, frustrated and angry, with no real clue what "magic numbers" it > wanted. > > It's quite baffling to me how this can be so difficult for you all to > understand. Even if we disregard the sheer intelligence factor, it's clear that > users of PG don't have the same intimate knowledge of PG's internals as the PG > developers, nor could possibly be expected to. > > As mentioned, I kept going back to the default configuration over and over > again. Anyone who doesn't is either a genius or pretends/thinks that they > understand it. (Or I'm extremely dumb.) I think there is a clear dependency that people reading the docs, particularly for performance purposes, must have an existing knowledge of a lot of low-level things --- this could be the cause of your frustration. -- Bruce Momjian <bruce@xxxxxxxxxx> https://momjian.us EnterpriseDB https://enterprisedb.com The usefulness of a cup is in its emptiness, Bruce Lee
