| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Kevin Grittner <kgrittn(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Tomas Vondra <tomas(dot)vondra(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: what to revert |
| Date: | 2016-05-10 14:02:50 |
| Message-ID: | 2289.1462888970@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Kevin Grittner <kgrittn(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> There were 75 samples each of "disabled" and "reverted" in the
> spreadsheet. Averaging them all, I see this:
> reverted: 290,660 TPS
> disabled: 292,014 TPS
> That's a 0.46% overall increase in performance with the patch,
> disabled, compared to reverting it. I'm surprised that you
> consider that to be a "clearly measurable difference". I mean, it
> was measured and it is a difference, but it seems to be well within
> the noise. Even though it is based on 150 samples, I'm not sure we
> should consider it statistically significant.
You don't have to guess about that --- compare it to the standard
deviation within each group.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2016-05-10 14:09:07 | Re: HeapTupleSatisfiesToast() busted? (was atomic pin/unpin causing errors) |
| Previous Message | Kevin Grittner | 2016-05-10 13:04:52 | Re: what to revert |