Neels Hofmeyr wrote on Wed, May 11, 2011 at 14:01:08 +0200:
> On Wed, 2011-05-11 at 02:02 +0200, Bert Huijben wrote:
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Daniel Shahaf [mailto:d.s_at_daniel.shahaf.name]
> > > Are you sure? The script's output seems a little bit too consistent:
> > >
> > > neels_at_apache.org wrote on Tue, May 10, 2011 at 11:57:35 +0000:
> > > > ("1.23|+0.45" means factor=1.23, difference in seconds = 0.45
> > > > factor < 1 or difference < 0 means '5x5_trunk' is faster than '5x5_1.6')
> > > ..
> > This is just the explanation how you should read the numbers. The real
> > numbers are in the tables (which you removed from this mail)
> heh lol exactly, that's just the legend. Didn't you notice? 1.23 .45? ;)
> It is probably healthy to be a little weary of those results, but still.
> We had quite bad numbers, now the same thing gives pretty nice numbers.
> That ought to say *some*thing.
> I did not believe it at first and double checked that the timings look
> real. And they do. There are still very very few commands that are
> slower by a very very small amount of seconds. The rest is mindblowing.
Yep, I've re-read the result and noticed that most of them were
improvement or very very slight deprovement (is that a word?).
I've also noticed that in some cases that max/min time were quite far
from the average; I wonder if we should be adding standard deviation
(or some other statistic of 'spread') to the output.
Received on 2011-05-11 14:33:00 CEST