On Tue, 2025-07-08 at 18:17 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> One other thing that bothers me as I look at the output is
>
> Per loop time including overhead: 731.26 ns
>
> That's stated in a way that makes it sound like that is a
> very solid number, when in fact it's just the average.
> We see from these test cases that there are frequently
> a few outliers that are far from the average. I'm tempted
> to rephrase as
>
> Average loop time including overhead: 731.26 ns
>
> or some variant of that. Thoughts?
I think that is a good idea.
Yours,
Laurenz Albe