"Kevin Grittner" <Kevin.Grittner@wicourts.gov> wrote:
> with the default settings, the patched version ran an additional 1%
> faster than the unpatched; although I don't have enough samples to
> have a high degree of confidence it wasn't noise. I'll run another
> slew of tests tonight with the existing dump file to confirm to
> debunk that result
The timings vary by up to 2.5% between runs, so that's the noise
level. Five runs of each (alternating between the two) last night
give an average performance of 1.89% faster for the patched version.
Combining that with yesterday's results starts to give me pretty good
confidence that the patch is beneficial for this database with this
configuration. I haven't found any database or configuration where it
hurts. (For most tests, adding up the results gave a net difference
measured in thousandths of a percent.)
Is that good enough, or is it still worth the effort of constructing
the artificial case where it might *really* shine? Or should I keep
running with the "real" database a few more nights to get a big enough
sample to further increase the confidence level with this test?
-Kevin