On 2016-04-07 11:56:12 +0200, Fabien COELHO wrote: > (2) runs which really vary from one to the next, so as > to have an idea about how much it may vary, what is the > performance stability.
I don't think this POV makes all that much sense. If you do something non-comparable, then the results aren't, uh, comparable. Which also means there's a lower chance to reproduce observed problems. > Currently pgbench focusses on (2), which may or may not be fine depending on > what you are doing. From a personal point of view I think that (2) is more > significant to collect performance data, even if the results are more > unstable: that simply reflects reality and its intrinsic variations, so I'm > fine that as the default. Uh, and what's the benefit of that variability? pgbench isn't a reality simulation tool, it's a benchmarking tool. And benchmarks with intrisinc variability are bad benchmarks. Greetings, Andres Freund -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (email@example.com) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers