Re: Hash Join cost estimates

From: Matthias <nitrogenycs(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, "Stephen Frost" <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>
Cc: "Jeff Davis" <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Hash Join cost estimates
Date: 2013-04-05 11:54:29
Message-ID: op.wu2go3b10uf2nk@nitrogenycs3
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: 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

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Noah Misch 2013-04-05 11:59:04 Re: matview scannability rehash (was Re: Drastic performance loss in assert-enabled build in HEAD)
Previous Message Nicolas Barbier 2013-04-05 09:17:30 Re: Drastic performance loss in assert-enabled build in HEAD