On Tue, May 10, 2016 at 9:02 AM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> Kevin Grittner <kgri...@gmail.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.

My statistics skills are rusty, but I thought that just gives you
an effect size, not any idea of whether the effect is statistically

Does anyone with sharper skills in this area than I want to opine
on whether there is a statistically significant difference between
the numbers on "master-default-disabled" lines and "master-revert"
lines in the old_snap.ods file attached to an earlier post on this

Kevin Grittner
EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company

Reply via email to