Re: Review: Revise parallel pg_restore's scheduling heuristic

On Fri, Aug 7, 2009 at 3:36 PM, Sam Mason<sam(at)samason(dot)me(dot)uk> wrote:
> 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.

Yeah, I more wanted to here from Tom or Kevin or anyone else who had a
technical thought about this. I haven't looked at the patch, but
there may be reasons other than performance to commit it - or there
may not. Tom posted a note on the commitfest suggesting that maybe we
should give up on this, and I don't care one way or the other, except
that in my role as CommitFest manager (or Mom) I'm trying to push the
remaining patches to some sort of conclusion: either committed, or
rejected, or needs more work please resubmit for the next CommitFest.

...Robert