| From: | David Rowley <dgrowleyml(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(dot)dunstan(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Developers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Recording test runtimes with the buildfarm |
| Date: | 2020-06-10 21:13:51 |
| Message-ID: | CAApHDvoON4--1gNL=4TzQxtM7DbKMneDTBVur2CpCJT7Qvmw-w@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, 11 Jun 2020 at 02:13, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)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.
David
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Thomas Munro | 2020-06-10 21:43:43 | Re: Recording test runtimes with the buildfarm |
| Previous Message | Magnus Hagander | 2020-06-10 19:05:26 | Re: Resetting spilled txn statistics in pg_stat_replication |