On Mon, Mar 24, 2014 at 04:54:38PM -0400, Don Zickus wrote:
> The stddev calculation written matched standard error. As a result when
> using this result to find the relative stddev between runs, it was not
> accurate.
>
This isn't the patch I that had my updates... Sorry for the noise.
The stddev calculation written matched standard error. As a result when
using this result to find the relative stddev between runs, it was not
accurate.
Update the formula to match traditional stddev. Then rename the old
stddev calculation to stderr_stats in case someone wants to use it.
The stddev calculation written matched standard error. As a result when
using this result to find the relative stddev between runs, it was not
accurate.
Update the formula to match traditional stddev. Then rename the old
stddev calculation to stderr_stats in case someone wants to use it.
The stddev calculation written matched standard error. As a result when
using this result to find the relative stddev between runs, it was not
accurate.
Update the formula to match traditional stddev. Then rename the old
stddev calculation to stderr_stats in case someone wants to use it.
The stddev calculation written matched standard error. As a result when
using this result to find the relative stddev between runs, it was not
accurate.
Update the formula to match traditional stddev. Then rename the old
stddev calculation to stderr_stats in case someone wants to use it.
On Mon, Mar 24, 2014 at 04:54:38PM -0400, Don Zickus wrote:
The stddev calculation written matched standard error. As a result when
using this result to find the relative stddev between runs, it was not
accurate.
This isn't the patch I that had my updates... Sorry for the noise.
Cheers,
6 matches
Mail list logo
