q2 on TimescaleDB is 5 ms, not about 2 - #384
Merged
Merged
Conversation
The paragraph explaining why the one-host queries are far apart said TimescaleDB answers q2 "in about 2 milliseconds". The serial table in the same file says 5, and the 442x figure quoted three paragraphs above is 2,211 / 5. There is no 2 ms cell in that row; the nearest is q1 at 4. A number in the prose that disagrees with the table it explains is the specific failure #381 was written to correct, so it should not survive in it. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
1 participant
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
One-word correction to #381.
The paragraph explaining why the one-host queries are far apart said TimescaleDB answers q2 "in about 2 milliseconds". The serial table in the same file says 5, and the 442x figure quoted three paragraphs above is exactly
2,211 / 5. There is no 2 ms cell in that row; the nearest is q1 at 4.A number in the prose that disagrees with the table it explains is the specific failure #381 was written to correct.
Everything else in #381 I verified on the bench and it holds: the correlations (0.0133 for
time, -0.0036 forhostname), the zero group skipping (667 of 667 read, 0 removed, 0 vectors skipped, 99,995,680 rows filtered to return 4,320), and all eight multipliers against the table.Docs only.
🤖 Generated with Claude Code