Received: from malur.postgresql.org ([217.196.149.56]) by arkaria.postgresql.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1b08G2-0003Mc-7V for pgsql-hackers@arkaria.postgresql.org; Tue, 10 May 2016 14:03:30 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=postgresql.org) by malur.postgresql.org with smtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1b08G1-0004m8-Hq for pgsql-hackers@arkaria.postgresql.org; Tue, 10 May 2016 14:03:29 +0000 Received: from makus.postgresql.org ([2001:4800:1501:1::229]) by malur.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1b08G0-0004lu-PI for pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org; Tue, 10 May 2016 14:03:28 +0000 Received: from sss.pgh.pa.us ([66.207.139.130]) by makus.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1b08Fx-0001tq-IJ for pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org; Tue, 10 May 2016 14:03:27 +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 u4AE2oZh002290; Tue, 10 May 2016 10:02:50 -0400 From: Tom Lane To: Kevin Grittner cc: Tomas Vondra , Andres Freund , "pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org" Subject: Re: what to revert In-reply-to: References: <20160503162209.ufuezlkovbrdrayp@alap3.anarazel.de> <20160503174104.tk7oz4akwbeqsmuq@alap3.anarazel.de> <20160503224241.rwtxrhgmprzqxhlv@alap3.anarazel.de> Comments: In-reply-to Kevin Grittner message dated "Tue, 10 May 2016 08:04:52 -0500" Date: Tue, 10 May 2016 10:02:50 -0400 Message-ID: <2289.1462888970@sss.pgh.pa.us> X-Pg-Spam-Score: -4.0 (----) List-Archive: List-Help: List-ID: List-Owner: List-Post: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Mailing-List: pgsql-hackers Precedence: bulk Sender: pgsql-hackers-owner@postgresql.org Kevin Grittner 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. regards, tom lane -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers