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 -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
