"Kevin Grittner" <kevin.gritt...@wicourts.gov> wrote: > with the default settings, the patched version ran an additional 1% > faster than the unpatched; although I don't have enough samples to > have a high degree of confidence it wasn't noise. I'll run another > slew of tests tonight with the existing dump file to confirm to > debunk that result The timings vary by up to 2.5% between runs, so that's the noise level. Five runs of each (alternating between the two) last night give an average performance of 1.89% faster for the patched version. Combining that with yesterday's results starts to give me pretty good confidence that the patch is beneficial for this database with this configuration. I haven't found any database or configuration where it hurts. (For most tests, adding up the results gave a net difference measured in thousandths of a percent.) Is that good enough, or is it still worth the effort of constructing the artificial case where it might *really* shine? Or should I keep running with the "real" database a few more nights to get a big enough sample to further increase the confidence level with this test? -Kevin
-- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers