On 2016-03-22 10:48:20 +0100, Tomas Vondra wrote: > Hi, > > On 03/22/2016 10:44 AM, Fabien COELHO wrote: > > > > > >>>>1) regular-latency.png > >>> > >>>I'm wondering whether it would be clearer if the percentiles > >>>where relative to the largest sample, not to itself, so that the > >>>figures from the largest one would still be between 0 and 1, but > >>>the other (unpatched) one would go between 0 and 0.85, that is > >>>would be cut short proportionnaly to the actual performance. > >> > >>I'm not sure what you mean by 'relative to largest sample'? > > > >You took 5% of the tx on two 12 hours runs, totaling say 85M tx on > >one and 100M tx on the other, so you get 4.25M tx from the first and > >5M from the second. > > OK > > >I'm saying that the percentile should be computed on the largest one > >(5M), so that you get a curve like the following, with both curve > >having the same transaction density on the y axis, so the second one > >does not go up to the top, reflecting that in this case less > >transactions where processed. > > Huh, that seems weird. That's not how percentiles or CDFs work, and I don't > quite understand what would that tell us.
My impression is that we actually know what we need to know anyway? -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
