Re: what to revert

<div dir="ltr">On Tue, May 10, 2016 at 3:29 AM, Kevin Grittner <<a
href="mailto:kgrittn@gmail.com">kgrittn@gmail.com</a>>wrote:<br /><br />>> * The results are a bit noisy, but
Ithink in general this shows<br />>> that for certain cases there's a clearly measurable difference<br />>>
(upto 5%) between the "disabled" and "reverted" cases. This is<br />>> particularly visible on the smallest data
set.<br/>><br />> In some cases, the differences are in favor of disabled over<br />> reverted.<br /><br
/>Therewere 75 samples each of "disabled" and "reverted" in the<br />spreadsheet.  Averaging them all, I see this:<br
/><br/>reverted:  290,660 TPS<br />disabled:  292,014 TPS<br /><br />That's a 0.46% overall increase in performance
withthe patch,<br />disabled, compared to reverting it.  I'm surprised that you<br />consider that to be a "clearly
measurabledifference".  I mean, it<br />was measured and it is a difference, but it seems to be well within<br />the
noise. Even though it is based on 150 samples, I'm not sure we<br />should consider it statistically significant.<br
/><br/>--<br />Kevin Grittner<br />EDB: <a href="http://www.enterprisedb.com">http://www.enterprisedb.com</a><br />The
EnterprisePostgreSQL Company<br /></div>