Knowledge graph completion (KGC) aims to infer missing knowledge triples based on known facts in a knowledge graph. Current KGC research mostly follows an entity ranking protocol, wherein the effectiveness is measured by the predicted rank of a masked entity in a test triple. The overall performance is then given by a micro(-average) metric over all individual answer entities. Due to the incomplete nature of the large-scale knowledge bases, such an entity ranking setting is likely affected by unlabelled top-ranked positive examples, raising questions on whether the current evaluation protocol is sufficient to guarantee a fair comparison of KGC systems. To this end, this paper presents a systematic study on whether and how the label sparsity affects the current KGC evaluation with the popular micro metrics. Specifically, inspired by the TREC paradigm for large-scale information retrieval (IR) experimentation, we create a relatively "complete" judgment set based on a sample from the popular FB15k-237 dataset following the TREC pooling method. According to our analysis, it comes as a surprise that switching from the original labels to our "complete" labels results in a drastic change of system ranking of a variety of 13 popular KGC models in terms of micro metrics. Further investigation indicates that the IR-like macro(-average) metrics are more stable and discriminative under different settings, meanwhile, less affected by label sparsity. Thus, for KGC evaluation, we recommend conducting TREC-style pooling to balance between human efforts and label completeness, and reporting also the IR-like macro metrics to reflect the ranking nature of the KGC task.