Hi, On June 10, 2020 2:13:51 PM PDT, David Rowley <dgrowle...@gmail.com> wrote: >On Thu, 11 Jun 2020 at 02:13, Tom Lane <t...@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 parallel runs. 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.
