4 ms·
I think he's trying to explain that .14 on 300.14 is negligible where as on 2.14 it might mean a lot. However, I do not fully agree with his statement either.
by pan69 15y ago
I think he's trying to explain that .14 on 300.14 is negligible where as on 2.14 it might mean a lot.
However, I do not fully agree with his statement either. If something takes 300.14ms the .14 is a pretty useless detail. But if I now do this operation in a loop of 1 million it suddenly adds up to a lot. Knowing 300.14 was definitely worth while.
I guess it's all about context.
- wtcurtis 15y agoIt's not a question of whether that .14 is negligible. His point is that it's literally meaningless. Say you're benchmarking some routine. One particular measurement may be 300.14 ms. The next may be, say, 302.56 ms. The one after that, 297.12 ms. You have no way of knowing whether that .14 ms is due to the implementation of the routine, or whether it's simply noise in the measurement.