Re: Hash Join cost estimates - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Matthias
Subject Re: Hash Join cost estimates
Date
Msg-id op.wu2go3b10uf2nk@nitrogenycs3
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Hash Join cost estimates  (Stephen Frost <sfrost@snowman.net>)
Responses Re: Hash Join cost estimates
List pgsql-hackers
> In this example, hashing the large table is actually 2 seconds *faster*
> than hashing the small table (again, all on my laptop).

Are you running the laptop on battery? When I've benchmarked pgsql last  
time I used my laptop as well and it only occured to me after a lot of  
trying that laptops (even with all energy saving disabled in my case)  
don't always make for reliable benchmark machines. Things like your CPU  
clockspeed being dynamically adjusted can produce really strange results.

Also when I was running on battery the performance numbers could not be  
compared in any way to when I was running with the laptop connected  
straight to a socket. Things like IO/CPU ratio were completely different.  
And numbers on the final testing servers were even different.

Of course your test case might not be affected by this at all, but it's  
something to watch out for.

-Matthias



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Nicolas Barbier
Date:
Subject: Re: Drastic performance loss in assert-enabled build in HEAD
Next
From: Noah Misch
Date:
Subject: Re: matview scannability rehash (was Re: Drastic performance loss in assert-enabled build in HEAD)