Received: from malur.postgresql.org ([217.196.149.56]) by arkaria.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from ) id 1f5u72-00067Y-8r for pgsql-hackers@arkaria.postgresql.org; Tue, 10 Apr 2018 14:19:08 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=malur.postgresql.org) by malur.postgresql.org with esmtp (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from ) id 1f5u71-0004Qc-5a for pgsql-hackers@arkaria.postgresql.org; Tue, 10 Apr 2018 14:19:07 +0000 Received: from makus.postgresql.org ([2001:4800:1501:1::229]) by malur.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from ) id 1f5u5o-0005SY-44 for pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org; Tue, 10 Apr 2018 14:17:52 +0000 Received: from new1-smtp.messagingengine.com ([66.111.4.221]) by makus.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from ) id 1f5u5k-0000tA-Px for pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org; Tue, 10 Apr 2018 14:17:50 +0000 Received: from compute4.internal (compute4.nyi.internal [10.202.2.44]) by mailnew.nyi.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id 143F311E5; Tue, 10 Apr 2018 10:17:48 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mailfrontend1 ([10.202.2.162]) by compute4.internal (MEProxy); Tue, 10 Apr 2018 10:17:48 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=cc:content-transfer-encoding:content-type :date:from:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version:subject:to :x-me-sender:x-me-sender:x-sasl-enc; s=fm2; bh=KwZ31kmBeCMP5Ccvf mM4UZc1cD9INDXJDRW94ljTq3E=; b=fb4U8J24moJU9RKa01WC6eVn6/eP42rqk 7Rq4JSU99SBJ9bKyBxCxf+umfTEApNLwewwm6mM+72Wx+Uuuype0SqHLFmeT7qY5 8djzCjM08y3/zA7vWLa6QEQ2A4h9kR5wkejHeMQMmb4CsLat3fS6Yes29Y7lJfpN BfhPVZ0ZiMHYjMzVvh6p/5TcYgWzf8rbiFgX0YInSdvuXInkuHXk+Bmni5rFKlTc KrgIohz5JF4HQvx1BScGSJy5s5z4wgrrPBXoLhr8XCy8FGySmumQsaTdCF408euW Dv6P2Czh3M8mONl/vv/beXwVdKysE/TblZZTZeOs2gwWCldU756BA== X-ME-Sender: Received: from alvin.alvh.no-ip.org (unknown [179.56.29.253]) by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA id 7FA50E507D; Tue, 10 Apr 2018 10:17:45 -0400 (EDT) Received: by alvin.alvh.no-ip.org (Postfix, from userid 1000) id C573E764; Tue, 10 Apr 2018 11:17:43 -0300 (-03) Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2018 11:17:43 -0300 From: Alvaro Herrera To: Mark Rofail Cc: David Steele , Andreas Karlsson , Alexander Korotkov , Erik Rijkers , =?iso-8859-1?Q?Hans-J=FCrgen_Sch=F6nig?= , Robert Haas , Stephen Frost , Tom Lane , pgsql-hackers Subject: Re: [HACKERS] GSoC 2017: Foreign Key Arrays Message-ID: <20180410141743.aphekyopkbre3avp@alvherre.pgsql> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: User-Agent: NeoMutt/20170306-137-4415bd-dirty (1.8.0) List-Id: List-Help: List-Subscribe: List-Post: List-Owner: List-Archive: Precedence: bulk Mark Rofail wrote: > On Tue, Apr 10, 2018 at 3:59 PM, Alvaro Herrera > wrote: > > > > documentation to it and a few extensive tests to ensure it works well); > > I think the existing regression tests verify that the patch works as > expectations, correct? I meant for the GIN operator. (Remember, these are two patches, and each of them needs its own tests.) > We need more *exhaustive* tests to test performance, not functionality. True. So my impression from the numbers you posted last time is that you need to run each measurement case several times, and provide averages/ stddevs/etc for the resulting numbers, and see about outliers (maybe throw them away, or maybe they indicate some problem in the test or in the code); then we can make an informed decision about whether the variations between the several different scenarios are real improvements (or pessimizations) or just measurement noise. In particular: it seemed to me that you decided to throw away the idea of the new GIN operator without sufficient evidence that it was unnecessary. -- Álvaro Herrera https://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services