Re: Review: Revise parallel pg_restore's scheduling heuristic

Поиск
Список
Период
Сортировка
От Sam Mason
Тема Re: Review: Revise parallel pg_restore's scheduling heuristic
Дата
Msg-id 20090807193613.GR5407@samason.me.uk
обсуждение исходный текст
Ответ на Re: Review: Revise parallel pg_restore's scheduling heuristic  (Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>)
Ответы Re: Review: Revise parallel pg_restore's scheduling heuristic
Список 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/


В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления:

Предыдущее
От: Sam Mason
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: Review: Revise parallel pg_restore's scheduling heuristic
Следующее
От: Emmanuel Cecchet
Дата:
Сообщение: Durability?