It is not about my "conceptualising", I was simply referring to the fact that the conclusions refer to something different than the graphs. The author himself uses the term "load", so I guess we should stick to what he meant. Still, graph is showing the absolute value of the load, not per-transaction value. Then it takes an extra effort to actually realize that maybe the author's claim is valid, but in a per-transaction context. Why then the graph wasn't made to plot per-transaction values if that was author's point? It adds unnecessary confusion. That confusion is perceived just after reading another inconsistency - that there is supposed 5x tps speedup while we see 4× (visible 80k divided by visible 20k is 4 not 5). So why 5x? Was this 5x based on a median perhaps, or on some percentile- then why such a median or percentile wasn't shown on the graph? ..and so on.
Please don't get me wrong. 4x tps speedup is nice achievement already. It's great enough to congratulate the author and be happy. But it's also presentation of the result that matters, if there are inconsistencies, or the author based his claims on a different measurements than what is shown, then it's natural that it can make one to raise in eyebrow. It doesn't solidify the trust, as opposed to presenting the conclusions matching the graphs exactly.
Please don't get me wrong. 4x tps speedup is nice achievement already. It's great enough to congratulate the author and be happy. But it's also presentation of the result that matters, if there are inconsistencies, or the author based his claims on a different measurements than what is shown, then it's natural that it can make one to raise in eyebrow. It doesn't solidify the trust, as opposed to presenting the conclusions matching the graphs exactly.