Hi,
On June 10, 2020 2:13:51 PM PDT, David Rowley <dgrowleyml@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Thu, 11 Jun 2020 at 02:13, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>> I have in the past scraped the latter results and tried to make sense
>of
>> them. They are *mighty* noisy, even when considering just one animal
>> that I know to be running on a machine with little else to do.
>
>Do you recall if you looked at the parallel results or the serially
>executed ones?
>
>I imagine that the parallel ones will have much more noise since we
>run the tests up to 20 at a time. I imagine probably none, or at most
>not many of the animals have enough CPU cores not to be context
>switching a lot during those the parallel runs. I thought the serial
>ones would be better but didn't have an idea of they'd be good enough
>to be useful.
I'd assume that a rolling average (maybe 10 runs or so) would hide noise enough to see at least some trends even for
parallelruns.
We should be able to prototype this with a few queries over the bf database, right?
Andres
--
Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.
