>>> Argh. It's just because I used -P5. It's a bit confusing that the other
>>> options are per second, and this is per interval...
>>
>> I agree, but I'm unsure of a fix, beyond what is already done which is to
>> show units next to the figures...
>>
>> ISTM that people expect "tps" for performance, even on several seconds.
>> When it comes to skipped transactions, a count seemed more natural. I
>> really just see this as an indicator that things are not going smoothly.
>>
>> Maybe it could be shown as a percentage of scheduled transactions,
>> possibly with an option?
>>
>> A mitigation is to always run with -P 1 :-).
>
> Wouldn't printing average (per second) over the interval work?
Yes it would. That would be "skipped tps". Why not. The percentage seems
also attractive to me, because it does not matter whether you get big
figures or small figures as it is relative.
--
Fabien.
