On Mon, May 30, 2022 at 2:37 PM David Rowley <dgrowle...@gmail.com> wrote: > The results compare PG14 @ 0adff38d against master @ b3fb16e8b. In > the chart, anything below 100% is a performance improvement over PG14 > and anything above 100% means PG15 is slower. You can see there's > only the 64-byte / 64MB work_mem test that gets significantly slower > and that there are only a small amount of other tests that are > slightly slower. Most are faster and on average PG15 takes 90% of the > time that PG14 took.
Shouldn't this be using the geometric mean rather than the arithmetic mean? That's pretty standard practice when summarizing a set of benchmark results that are expressed as ratios to some baseline. If I tweak your spreadsheet to use the geometric mean, the patch looks slightly better -- 89%. -- Peter Geoghegan
