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

From Tom Lane
Subject Re: Review: Revise parallel pg_restore's scheduling heuristic
Date
Msg-id 22965.1249397152@sss.pgh.pa.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Review: Revise parallel pg_restore's scheduling heuristic  (Sam Mason <sam@samason.me.uk>)
Responses Re: Review: Revise parallel pg_restore's scheduling heuristic  (Sam Mason <sam@samason.me.uk>)
List pgsql-hackers
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?
        regards, tom lane


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Alvaro Herrera
Date:
Subject: Re: pg_proc.probin should become text?
Next
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: Alpha Releases: Docs?