David Rowley <dgrowleyml@gmail.com> writes:
> On Thu, 11 Jun 2020 at 02:13, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.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.
I can't claim to recall specifically, but I agree with your theory
about that, so I probably looked at the serial-schedule case.
Note that this is moot for animals using use_installcheck_parallel
... but it looks like that's still just a minority of them.
regards, tom lane