| From: | Hannu Krosing <hannuk(at)google(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Laurenz Albe <laurenz(dot)albe(at)cybertec(dot)at> |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: What is a typical precision of gettimeofday()? |
| Date: | 2025-07-09 11:14:06 |
| Message-ID: | CAMT0RQSRzOoend8=qUnKd5OUah0cw9wF_sqyiTOG4d7ZF069+A@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Yes, this should say average
On Wed, Jul 9, 2025 at 8:42 AM Laurenz Albe <laurenz(dot)albe(at)cybertec(dot)at> wrote:
>
> On Tue, 2025-07-08 at 18:17 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> > One other thing that bothers me as I look at the output is
> >
> > Per loop time including overhead: 731.26 ns
> >
> > That's stated in a way that makes it sound like that is a
> > very solid number, when in fact it's just the average.
> > We see from these test cases that there are frequently
> > a few outliers that are far from the average. I'm tempted
> > to rephrase as
> >
> > Average loop time including overhead: 731.26 ns
> >
> > or some variant of that. Thoughts?
>
> I think that is a good idea.
>
> Yours,
> Laurenz Albe
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Matthias van de Meent | 2025-07-09 11:26:09 | Re: AIO v2.5 |
| Previous Message | Fujii Masao | 2025-07-09 10:45:56 | Re: Tab completion for large objects |