On Tue, 2025-07-08 at 18:17 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > One other thing that bothers me as I look at the output is > > Per loop time including overhead: 731.26 ns > > That's stated in a way that makes it sound like that is a > very solid number, when in fact it's just the average. > We see from these test cases that there are frequently > a few outliers that are far from the average. I'm tempted > to rephrase as > > Average loop time including overhead: 731.26 ns > > or some variant of that. Thoughts?
I think that is a good idea. Yours, Laurenz Albe
