We read every piece of feedback, and take your input very seriously.
To see all available qualifiers, see our documentation.
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
For some reason with this tdigest, some percentiles are wrong.
flags 0 count 14 compression 100 centroids 14 (3.249696, 1) (8.566236, 1) (10.157393, 1) (12.757881, 1) (12.882931, 1) (38.585662, 1) (48.822837, 1) (55.881150, 1) (60.400374, 1) (69.476553, 1) (77.267742, 1) (83.499431, 1) (86.896817, 1) (91.439196, 1)
For some reason the 93-96 percentiles report higher than 97-99
92% 90.8941102381796 93% 91.5300433030352 94% 92.1659763678908 95% 92.8019094327465 96% 93.4378424976021 97% 91.4391957223415 98% 91.4391957223415 99% 91.4391957223415
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
Thanks for the report. I can reproduce it and yeah - that seems like a bug.
Sorry, something went wrong.
Should be fixed by 4eb5bff. A stupid rounding issue with int64 and double arithmetics.
Should be fixed by 4eb5bff, and I've added a simple regression test in 0be29a2.
No branches or pull requests
For some reason with this tdigest, some percentiles are wrong.
flags 0 count 14 compression 100 centroids 14 (3.249696, 1) (8.566236, 1) (10.157393, 1) (12.757881, 1) (12.882931, 1) (38.585662, 1) (48.822837, 1) (55.881150, 1) (60.400374, 1) (69.476553, 1) (77.267742, 1) (83.499431, 1) (86.896817, 1) (91.439196, 1)
For some reason the 93-96 percentiles report higher than 97-99
92% 90.8941102381796
93% 91.5300433030352
94% 92.1659763678908
95% 92.8019094327465
96% 93.4378424976021
97% 91.4391957223415
98% 91.4391957223415
99% 91.4391957223415
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: