Re: Review: Revise parallel pg_restore's scheduling heuristic

From: "Kevin Grittner" <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov>
To: "Andrew Dunstan" <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>
Cc: "Robert Haas" <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Review: Revise parallel pg_restore's scheduling heuristic
Date: 2009-07-27 16:14:36
Message-ID: 4A6D8C1C0200002500028D89@gw.wicourts.gov
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> wrote:

> Does your test case have lots of foreign keys?

488 of them.

There is some variation on individual tests, but the results look to
be "in the noise." When I add them all up, the patch comes out
0.0036% slower -- but that is so far into the noise as to be
considered "no difference" in my book.

-Kevin

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Pavel Stehule 2009-07-27 16:42:06 Re: proposal: support empty string as separator for string_to_array
Previous Message Andrew Dunstan 2009-07-27 16:05:07 Re: Review: Revise parallel pg_restore's scheduling heuristic