6 ms·

I'm liking the new trend of making databases "fast" by default, with "safe" configurations. People who care about safety should take the time make it so; people

I'm liking the new trend of making databases "fast" by default, with "safe" configurations. People who care about safety should take the time make it so; people who want it fast, well, give it to them faster! So maybe PostgreSQL should offer faster defaults?

dstorrs 16y ago
It's a design decision. MySQL chose "fast defaults". PostgreSQL chose "safe defaults". If you want the other choice, use the other database.
hgimenez 16y ago
Not sure what you mean by "safe" by default. Speed and performance have nothing to do with security, if that's what you mean. The reason that the default Postgres configuration does not perform well is that Postgres runs on a number of operating systems, and it is not possible to make assumptions about the hardware and configuration of the host. For example, increasing configuration parameters like shared_buffers to any useful value will require you to tweak the OS'es kernel resources. The Postgres documentation does a great job at describing the process on a number of operating systems: http://www.postgresql.org/docs/current/interactive/kernel-resources.html http://www.postgresql.org/docs/current/interactive/kernel-re...
- andrewf 16y ago
  Plenty of software manages to share information between processes without using SysV shared memory, and therefore being subject to these kernel resource limits. I'm not saying this should necessarily be fixed - I'm sure the Postgres team has better things to be working on. But it's not a natural, unavoidable limitation, either.