Received: from maia.hub.org (maia-2.hub.org [200.46.204.251]) by mail.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 572A91337B51 for ; Fri, 21 Jan 2011 16:22:42 -0400 (AST) Received: from mail.postgresql.org ([200.46.204.86]) by maia.hub.org (mx1.hub.org [200.46.204.251]) (amavisd-maia, port 10024) with ESMTP id 75892-07 for ; Fri, 21 Jan 2011 20:22:41 +0000 (UTC) Received: from amadensor.com (amadensor.com [200.46.208.228]) by mail.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A28431337B4A for ; Fri, 21 Jan 2011 16:22:41 -0400 (AST) Received: from maia.hub.org (maia-2.hub.org [200.46.204.251]) by amadensor.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 82B0C18A4521 for ; Fri, 21 Jan 2011 20:22:40 +0000 (UTC) Received: from amadensor.com ([200.46.208.228]) by maia.hub.org (mx1.hub.org [200.46.204.251]) (amavisd-maia, port 10024) with ESMTP id 76453-05 for ; Fri, 21 Jan 2011 20:22:33 +0000 (UTC) Received: from dbms (unknown [76.76.81.70]) by amadensor.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA id B3CE218A456A for ; Fri, 21 Jan 2011 20:22:31 +0000 (UTC) Received: from dbms ([127.0.0.1] helo=grant.boldlygoingnowhere.org ident=www-data) by dbms with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1PgNRe-0003gx-4d for pgsql-performance@postgresql.org; Fri, 21 Jan 2011 13:18:55 -0700 Received: from 159.238.13.4 (SquirrelMail authenticated user grant) by grant.boldlygoingnowhere.org with HTTP; Fri, 21 Jan 2011 13:18:55 -0700 (MST) Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <4D39D07B.1070802@squeakycode.net> References: <4D39D07B.1070802@squeakycode.net> Date: Fri, 21 Jan 2011 13:18:55 -0700 (MST) Subject: Re: Fun little performance IMPROVEMENT... From: grant@amadensor.com To: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org User-Agent: SquirrelMail/1.4.15 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain;charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) Importance: Normal X-Virus-Scanned: Maia Mailguard 1.0.1 X-Virus-Scanned: Maia Mailguard 1.0.1 X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-1.5 tagged_above=-10 required=5 tests=ALL_TRUSTED=-1, BAYES_05=-0.5 X-Spam-Level: X-Archive-Number: 201101/207 X-Sequence-Number: 41994 > > Odd. Did'ja by chance run the select more than once... maybe three or > four times, and always get the same (or close) results? > > Is the stress package running niced? > The stress package is not running niced. I ran it initially 5 times each. It was very consistent. Initially, I just ran everything to files. Later when I looked over it, I was confused, so tried it again, several times on each, with very little deviation, and the process with the CPU stressed always being faster. The only deviation, which is understandable, was that the first run of anything after memory stress (using 7G of the available 8G). was slow as it swapped back in, so I did a swapoff/swapon to clear up swap, and still got the same results.