Re: Review: Revise parallel pg_restore's scheduling heuristic - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Sam Mason
Subject Re: Review: Revise parallel pg_restore's scheduling heuristic
Date
Msg-id 20090804150340.GK5407@samason.me.uk
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Review: Revise parallel pg_restore's scheduling heuristic  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
List pgsql-hackers
On Tue, Aug 04, 2009 at 10:45:52AM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Sam Mason <sam@samason.me.uk> writes:
> >   t       = 0.54  ((avg1 - avg2) / (stddev * sqrt(2/samples)))
> 
> > We then have to choose how certain we want to be that they're actually
> > different, 90% is a reasonably easy level to hit (i.e. one part in ten,
> > with 95% being more commonly quoted).  For 20 samples we have 19 degrees
> > of freedom--giving us a cut-off[1] of 1.328.  0.54 is obviously well
> > below this allowing us to say that there's no "statistical significance"
> > between the two samples at a 90% level.
> 
> Hmm, so what about 95% or 99% confidence?

The cut-off goes up to 1.729 for 95% and to 2.539 for 99%.  These values
are only really for a 20 samples with the above calculation, the link I
gave above gives a nice table for different values.

I've also realized that I did the standard deviation all wrong.  I
should have calculated them independently and then got the mean:
 stddev1 = 159.9699 stddev2 = 129.6466 stddev  = 144.8083  ((stddev1+stddev2) / 2)

Here it makes absolutely no difference, but when they were really
different distributions it would.

--  Sam  http://samason.me.uk/


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Andrew Dunstan
Date:
Subject: Re: Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Cause pg_proc.probin to be declared as text, not bytea.
Next
From: Peter Eisentraut
Date:
Subject: Re: Alpha Releases: Docs?