On Sat, Feb 4, 2012 at 11:59 AM, Greg Smith <greg@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
> On 01/24/2012 08:58 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
>>
>> One somewhat odd thing about these numbers is that, on permanent
>> tables, all of the patches seemed to show regressions vs. master in
>> single-client throughput. That's a slightly difficult result to
>> believe, though, so it's probably a testing artifact of some kind.
>
> It looks like you may have run the ones against master first, then the ones
> applying various patches. The one test artifact I have to be very careful
> to avoid in that situation is that later files on the physical disk are
> slower than earlier ones. There's a >30% differences between the fastest
> part of a regular hard drive, the logical beginning, and its end. Multiple
> test runs tend to creep forward onto later sections of disk, and be biased
> toward the earlier run in that case. To eliminate that bias when it gets
> bad, I normally either a) run each test 3 times, interleaved, or b) rebuild
> the filesystem in between each initdb.
>
> I'm not sure that's the problem you're running into, but it's the only one
> I've been hit by that matches the suspicious part of your results.
I don't think that's it, because tests on various branches were
interleaved; moreover, I don't believe master was the first one in the
rotation. I think I had then in alphabetical order by branch name,
actually.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
