Re: Review: Revise parallel pg_restore's scheduling heuristic - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Sam Mason
Subject Re: Review: Revise parallel pg_restore's scheduling heuristic
Date
Msg-id 20090807193613.GR5407@samason.me.uk
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Review: Revise parallel pg_restore's scheduling heuristic  (Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>)
Responses Re: Review: Revise parallel pg_restore's scheduling heuristic  (Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
On Fri, Aug 07, 2009 at 03:18:54PM -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 7, 2009 at 3:08 PM, Kevin Grittner <Kevin.Grittner@wicourts.gov> wrote:
> > With the 20 samples from that last round of tests, the answer (rounded
> > to the nearest percent) is 60%, so "probably noise" is a good summary.
> 
> So should we give up on this patch?

That's the joy of stats, it only tells you *very* precisely about the
*exact* thing you've chosen to test.  Interpreting the result is still
awkward, but it does remove one problem!

If you think the tests that've been done cover the use cases that the
new code was been designed to help with and you're not showing any
benefit I'd probably give up and put it down to a learning experience.
Sorry, but I've not been following enough to comment on this much more.

--  Sam  http://samason.me.uk/


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Sam Mason
Date:
Subject: Re: Review: Revise parallel pg_restore's scheduling heuristic
Next
From: Emmanuel Cecchet
Date:
Subject: Durability?