| From: | Greg Smith <gsmith(at)gregsmith(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | ITAGAKI Takahiro <itagaki(dot)takahiro(at)oss(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: pgbench duration option |
| Date: | 2008-08-17 20:07:53 |
| Message-ID: | Pine.GSO.4.64.0808171555240.22068@westnet.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, 12 Aug 2008, Tom Lane wrote:
> This seems like a fairly bad idea, because it introduces a
> gettimeofday() call per transaction.
There's already lots of paths through pgbench that introduce gettimeofday
calls all over the place. I fail to see how this is any different.
> If this were worth doing (which IMHO it isn't)
I think that switching the recommended practice for running pgbench to
something time-based rather than transactions-based would increase the
average quality of results people got considerably. How many times do you
see people posting numbers that worthless because the test ran for a
trivial amount of time? Seems like it happens a lot to me. This patch
was already on my todo list for 8.4 and I'm glad I don't have to write it
myself now.
--
* Greg Smith gsmith(at)gregsmith(dot)com http://www.gregsmith.com Baltimore, MD
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Greg Smith | 2008-08-17 20:48:20 | Re: Overhauling GUCS |
| Previous Message | Pavel Stehule | 2008-08-17 18:50:45 | Re: proposal sql: labeled function params |