From: Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>
To: Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>
Cc: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Cc: Thomas Munro <thomas.munro@enterprisedb.com>
Cc: pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: pgsql: Add parallel-aware hash joins.
Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2018 10:28:41 -0800
Message-ID: <20180124182841.ep7yr6tgqazsoilu@alap3.anarazel.de> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CA+TgmoYvHMv-9TKvPAotiYhv_Opj6HSJvkvQ6ReeYsOJceZSqQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <30219.1514428346@sss.pgh.pa.us>
<CAEepm=1OyZcCAxAEWYhmeg0qmWyYF2O2yW7s7A4uVTt-dgRRyQ@mail.gmail.com>
<4503.1514435195@sss.pgh.pa.us>
<CAEepm=2rZ6NzdR7Rk5jsXsJR8M_kRmi+0JSY1x6DLSdmBb-=VA@mail.gmail.com>
<CAEepm=1KTKEKW3KBbZwN6Ohh+rhuXjxC_f-F4VHR8Y6UWC=xVQ@mail.gmail.com>
<21339.1516633310@sss.pgh.pa.us>
<24384.1516665190@sss.pgh.pa.us>
<CA+TgmoZeUY9W30Zzmi6q9JbnF6cGOpaea381M2XmDro+umYVhA@mail.gmail.com>
<12736.1516749056@sss.pgh.pa.us>
<CA+TgmoYvHMv-9TKvPAotiYhv_Opj6HSJvkvQ6ReeYsOJceZSqQ@mail.gmail.com>
Hi,
On 2018-01-24 13:11:22 -0500, Robert Haas wrote:
> So for me, the additional hash index tests don't cost anything
> measurable and the additional hash join tests cost about a second. I
> think this probably accounts for why committers other than you keep
> "adding so much time to the regression tests". On modern hardware,
> the costs just don't matter.
I very much agree with the general sentiment, but a second of a 25s test
certainly isn't nothing. As I've just written a few messages upthread,
I think we can hide the overall timing costs to a much larger degree
than we're doing, but I don't think we need not pay attention at all.
> Now, how much should we care about the performance of software with a
> planned release date of 2018 on hardware discontinued in 2001,
> hardware that is apparently about 20 times slower than a modern
> laptop? Some, perhaps, but maybe not a whole lot. Removing tests
> that have found actual bugs because they cost runtime on ancient
> systems that nobody uses for serious work doesn't make sense to me.
I again agree with the sentiment. One caveat is that old machines also
somewhat approximate testing with more instrumentation / debugging
enabled (say valgrind, CLOBBER_CACHE_ALWAYS, etc). So removing excessive
test overhead has still quite some benefits. But I definitely do not
want to lower coverage to achieve it.
Greetings,
Andres Freund
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Reply to all the recipients using the --to and --cc options:
reply via email
To: pgsql-committers@postgresql.org
Cc: andres@anarazel.de, robertmhaas@gmail.com, tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us, thomas.munro@enterprisedb.com, pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: pgsql: Add parallel-aware hash joins.
In-Reply-To: <20180124182841.ep7yr6tgqazsoilu@alap3.anarazel.de>
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
This inbox is served by DDX for PostgreSQL; see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox