Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> writes:
> On Mon, Nov 20, 2017 at 1:40 PM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>> I dunno, it just looks odd to me that when we've set up a test case in
>> which every one of the transactions is guaranteed to exceed the latency
>> limit, that it doesn't say that they all did. I don't particularly buy
>> your assumption that the percentages should sum. Anybody else have an
>> opinion there?
> I agree with you, but I don't think either approach is free from
> possible confusion. I think it would help to show the numerator and
> the denominator explicitly, e.g.:
> number of clients: 1
> number of threads: 1
> number of transactions per client: 100
> number of transactions actually processed: 33/100
> number of transactions skipped: 67 (67.000 %)
> number of transactions above the 1.0 ms latency limit: 33 (33 of 33, 100.000
> %)
> (My proposed change is in the last line.)
Seems like a good idea, but the way you've written it is inconsistent
with the "n/m" notation used just above. I'd suggest
... latency limit: 33 (33/33, 100.000 %)
or just
... latency limit: 33/33 (100.000 %)
regards, tom lane
