| From: | Sam Mason <sam(at)samason(dot)me(dot)uk> |
|---|---|
| To: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Review: Revise parallel pg_restore's scheduling heuristic |
| Date: | 2009-08-07 19:36:13 |
| Message-ID: | 20090807193613.GR5407@samason.me.uk |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | 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(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)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/
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Kevin Grittner | 2009-08-07 19:49:43 | Re: Review: Revise parallel pg_restore's scheduling heuristic |
| Previous Message | Emmanuel Cecchet | 2009-08-07 19:31:34 | Durability? |