Message277177
| Author | lemburg |
|---|---|
| Recipients | brett.cannon, fijall, lemburg, ned.deily, pitrou, serhiy.storchaka, steven.daprano, tim.peters, vstinner |
| Date | 2016-09-21.18:35:29 |
| SpamBayes Score | -1.0 |
| Marked as misclassified | Yes |
| Message-id | <57E2D2EB.8080209@egenix.com> |
| In-reply-to | <1474467643.8.0.892269378533.issue28240@psf.upfronthosting.co.za> |
| Content | |
|---|---|
We had a similar discussion a while back for pybench. Consensus then was to use the minimum as basis for benchmarking: https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2006-June/065525.html I had used the average before this discussion in pybench 1.0: https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-announce-list/2001-November/001081.html There are arguments both pro and con using min or avg values. I'd suggest to display all values and base the findings on all available values, rather than just one: min, max, avg, median, stddev. |
|
| History | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Date | User | Action | Args |
| 2016-09-21 18:35:30 | lemburg | set | recipients: + lemburg, tim.peters, brett.cannon, pitrou, vstinner, ned.deily, steven.daprano, fijall, serhiy.storchaka |
| 2016-09-21 18:35:29 | lemburg | link | issue28240 messages |
| 2016-09-21 18:35:29 | lemburg | create | |