> The only problem that I see is the fact that it doesn't provide a way to
> easily access a desired percentile (only mean and 75th, 95th, 98th, 99th
> and 999th). Currently we are using 50th percentile, i.e. mean, but in the
> future that might change.
>

Please read median instead of mean above. Implementing the change, I
discovered Histogram#getSnapshot().getValue(double quantile) which is
exactly what I was looking for.


> I will try to make the adjustments and will revisit the percentile
> implementation once we'll change our use pattern there.
>

This change is tracked in OAK-6430 [0] and fixed at r1801043.

[0] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OAK-6430

2017-07-06 14:55 GMT+03:00 Andrei Dulceanu <andrei.dulce...@gmail.com>:

> Hi Chetan,
>
>
>> Instead of commons-math can we use Metric Histogram  (which I also
>> suggested earlier in the thread).
>
>
> I took another look at the Metric Histogram and I think at the moment it
> can be used instead of SynchronizedDescriptiveStatistics from
> commons-math3. The only problem that I see is the fact that it doesn't
> provide a way to easily access a desired percentile (only mean and 75th,
> 95th, 98th, 99th and 999th). Currently we are using 50th percentile, i.e.
> mean, but in the future that might change.
>
>
>> This would avoid downstream Oak
>> users to include another dependency as Oak is already using Metrics in
>> other places.
>>
>
> I will try to make the adjustments and will revisit the percentile
> implementation once we'll change our use pattern there.
>
> Regards,
> Andrei
>
> 2017-07-06 14:38 GMT+03:00 Chetan Mehrotra <chetan.mehro...@gmail.com>:
>
>> Instead of commons-math can we use Metric Histogram  (which I also
>> suggested earlier in the thread). This would avoid downstream Oak
>> users to include another dependency as Oak is already using Metrics in
>> other places.
>>
>> Can we reconsider this decision?
>> Chetan Mehrotra
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Jul 4, 2017 at 4:45 PM, Julian Sedding <jsedd...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>> > Maybe it is not necessary to embed *all* of commons-math3. The bnd
>> > tool (used by maven-bundle-plugin) can intelligently embed classes
>> > from specified java packages, but only if they are referenced.
>> > Depending on how well commons-math3 is modularized, that could allow
>> > for much less embedded classes. Neil Bartlett wrote a good blog post
>> > about this feature[0].
>> >
>> > Regards
>> > Julian
>> >
>> > [0] http://njbartlett.name/2014/05/26/static-linking.html
>> >
>> >
>> > On Tue, Jul 4, 2017 at 12:20 PM, Andrei Dulceanu
>> > <andrei.dulce...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> I'll add the dependency.
>> >>
>> >> Thanks,
>> >> Andrei
>> >>
>> >> 2017-07-04 13:10 GMT+03:00 Michael Dürig <mdue...@apache.org>:
>> >>
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>> On 04.07.17 11:15, Francesco Mari wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>>> 2017-07-04 10:52 GMT+02:00 Andrei Dulceanu <
>> andrei.dulce...@gmail.com>:
>> >>>>
>> >>>>> Now my question is this: do we have a simple percentile
>> implementation in
>> >>>>> Oak (I didn't find one)?
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>> I'm not aware of a percentile implementation in Oak.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> If not, would you recommend writing my own or adapting/extracting an
>> >>>>> existing one in a utility class?
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>> In the past we copied and pasted source code from other projects in
>> >>>> Oak. As long as the license allows it and proper attribution is
>> given,
>> >>>> it shouldn't be a problem. That said, I'm not a big fan of either
>> >>>> rewriting an implementation from scratch or copying and pasting
>> source
>> >>>> code from other projects. Is exposing a percentile really necessary?
>> >>>> If yes, how big of a problem is embedding of commons-math3?
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>> We should avoid copy paste as we might miss important fixes in later
>> >>> releases. I only did this once for some code where we needed a fix
>> that
>> >>> wasn't yet released. It was a hassle.
>> >>> I would just add a dependency to commons-math3. Its a library
>> exposing the
>> >>> functionality we require, so let's use it.
>> >>>
>> >>> Michael
>> >>>
>>
>
>

Reply via email to