Received: from malur.postgresql.org ([217.196.149.56])
	by arkaria.postgresql.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2)
	(envelope-from <pgsql-hackers-owner+archive@lists.postgresql.org>)
	id 1eHF9v-0000oT-Ue
	for pgsql-hackers@arkaria.postgresql.org; Tue, 21 Nov 2017 20:28:44 +0000
Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=malur.postgresql.org)
	by malur.postgresql.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2)
	(envelope-from <pgsql-hackers-owner+archive@lists.postgresql.org>)
	id 1eHF9v-00011M-GM
	for pgsql-hackers@arkaria.postgresql.org; Tue, 21 Nov 2017 20:28:43 +0000
Received: from magus.postgresql.org ([2a02:c0:301:0:ffff::29])
	by malur.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA384:256)
	(Exim 4.84_2)
	(envelope-from <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
	id 1eHF9v-00011C-B4
	for pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org; Tue, 21 Nov 2017 20:28:43 +0000
Received: from sss.pgh.pa.us ([66.207.139.130])
	by magus.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA384:256)
	(Exim 4.89)
	(envelope-from <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
	id 1eHF9r-000787-Rx
	for pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org; Tue, 21 Nov 2017 20:28:42 +0000
Received: from sss1.sss.pgh.pa.us (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by sss.pgh.pa.us (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id vALKSYBn019484;
	Tue, 21 Nov 2017 15:28:34 -0500
From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>
cc: Fabien COELHO <coelho@cri.ensmp.fr>, Steve Singer <steve@ssinger.info>,
        PostgreSQL Developers <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] pgbench regression test failure
In-reply-to: 
 <CA+TgmoZ8kbPuPC5ERSC8yqtVNoAp_WgpdDtUEvXLnHB3-CoisA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <26654.1505232433@sss.pgh.pa.us>
 <alpine.DEB.2.20.1709240820160.4999@lancre>
 <20171112024739.23750.54311.pgcf@coridan.postgresql.org>
 <alpine.DEB.2.20.1711131918090.18461@lancre> <28977.1511125910@sss.pgh.pa.us>
 <alpine.DEB.2.20.1711200703240.11926@lancre> <19670.1511203257@sss.pgh.pa.us>
 <CA+TgmoZ8kbPuPC5ERSC8yqtVNoAp_WgpdDtUEvXLnHB3-CoisA@mail.gmail.com>
Comments: In-reply-to Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>
	message dated "Tue, 21 Nov 2017 15:21:56 -0500"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-ID: <19482.1511296114.1@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Date: Tue, 21 Nov 2017 15:28:34 -0500
Message-ID: <19483.1511296114@sss.pgh.pa.us>
List-Id: <pgsql-hackers.lists.postgresql.org>
List-Help: <https://lists.postgresql.org/manage/>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.postgresql.org/manage/>
List-Post: <mailto:pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org>
List-Owner: <mailto:pgsql-hackers-owner@lists.postgresql.org>
List-Archive: <https://www.postgresql.org/list/pgsql-hackers>
Precedence: bulk

Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> writes:
> On Mon, Nov 20, 2017 at 1:40 PM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>> I dunno, it just looks odd to me that when we've set up a test case in
>> which every one of the transactions is guaranteed to exceed the latency
>> limit, that it doesn't say that they all did.  I don't particularly buy
>> your assumption that the percentages should sum.  Anybody else have an
>> opinion there?

> I agree with you, but I don't think either approach is free from
> possible confusion.  I think it would help to show the numerator and
> the denominator explicitly, e.g.:

> number of clients: 1
> number of threads: 1
> number of transactions per client: 100
> number of transactions actually processed: 33/100
> number of transactions skipped: 67 (67.000 %)
> number of transactions above the 1.0 ms latency limit: 33 (33 of 33, 100=
.000 %)

> (My proposed change is in the last line.)

Seems like a good idea, but the way you've written it is inconsistent
with the "n/m" notation used just above.  I'd suggest

... latency limit: 33 (33/33, 100.000 %)

or just

... latency limit: 33/33 (100.000 %)

			regards, tom lane