Re: [BENCHMARK] Corrected gcc3.2 v gcc2.95.3 contest results

[jw schultz <jw@pegasys.ws>]

On Tue, Sep 24, 2002 at 07:47:45AM +1000, Con Kolivas wrote:
> Quoting Oliver Xymoron <oxymoron@waste.org>:
> 
> > On Tue, Sep 24, 2002 at 12:24:49AM +1000, Con Kolivas wrote:
> > > 
> > > That is the system I was considering. I just need to run enough
> > > benchmarks to make this worthwhile though. That means about 5 for
> > > each it seems - which may take me a while. A basic mean will suffice
> > > for a measure of central tendency. I also need to quote some measure
> > > of variability. Standard deviation?
> > 
> > No, standard deviation is inappropriate here. We have no reason to
> > expect the distribution of problem cases to be normal or even smooth.
> > What we'd really like is range and mean. Don't throw out the outliers
> > either, the pathological cases are of critical interest.
> 
> Yes. Definitely the outliers appear to make the difference to the results. The
> mean and range appear to be the most important on examining this data. The only
> purpose to quoting other figures would be for inferential statistics to
> determine if there is a statistically significant difference to the groups. My
> overnight benchmarking has generated a few results and I will publish something
> soon.

Happy am i to be wrong in suggesting you would benefit from
the help of a statistician.  My apologies.

Sounds like we are getting to relative performance and
confidence interval (much bettern than +/- x) which would be
useful for those doing performance improvements and for us
who must tune or are watching the improvments take place.

-- 
________________________________________________________________
	J.W. Schultz            Pegasystems Technologies
	email address:		jw@pegasys.ws

		Remember Cernan and Schmitt