[Edit: While I was typing, Joe was posting a perfectly good answer]
Thank you Jim. If your initial post was before you saw mine, interesting how much we overlap. ; )
Regardless, Jim, you make some excellent (additional) points.
One subtle difference, though, although we come up with the same overall drop percentage, I say it's probably not an issue, while Jim says it has a negligible impact.
Why did I use probably?
Because, we don't know anything about the apps being used and we don't know anything about how these drops were "distributed".
In theory, all those drops could have happened in the few seconds before you obtained the network interface stats. If that was the case, the overall average remains the same very low drop percentage, but it could have been very high, and very impactful, for a few seconds. I think that's very, very (very) unlikely to have been what happened, but we really don't know. So, Jim is very, very (very) likely correct that any impact was negligible, but that's just probably the case.
I mention this because, if you don't understand drops can be very impactful, even at low overall averages, you may not believe users complaining about sporadic poor performance. (If I only had the proverbial nickel for every time I heard something like, our users cannot be having performance issues because our bandwidth monitoring shows our peak usage never even exceeds 30%. [Also, we need to obtain more bandwidth, because our bandwidth monitoring shows we pretty often hit 80%.])
Jim mentions considering QoS. QoS can "manage" traffic, providing much better consistency in app performance.
BTW, as you mention the port is feeding a wireless AP, wireless makes wired performance considerations trivial in comparison.
To recap, from the numbers you posted, both the egress drops and ingress giants are probably negligible. ; )
