| From: | Tatsuo Ishii <t-ishii(at)sra(dot)co(dot)jp> |
|---|---|
| To: | pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us |
| Cc: | curtis(at)galtair(dot)com, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Prepare enabled pgbench |
| Date: | 2002-11-13 02:32:35 |
| Message-ID: | 20021113.113235.48534472.t-ishii@sra.co.jp |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
> > But one of the purposes of pgbench is examining performance on
> > different environments, doesn't it? I'm afraid hard coded
> > PREPARE/EXECUTE makes it harder.
>
> I was just thinking that pgbench is for measuring code changes, not for
> testing changes _in_ pgbench. Once we know the performance difference
> for PERFORM, would we still keep the code in pgbench? Maybe to test
> later, I guess.
My concern is PREPARE/EXECUTE may NOT always improve the
performance. I guess we have very few data to judge PREPARE/EXECUTE is
good or not. Moreover PREPARE/EXECUTE might be improved in the
future. If that happens, keeping that switch would help examining the
effect, no?
--
Tatsuo Ishii
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2002-11-13 02:42:22 | Re: Prepare enabled pgbench |
| Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2002-11-13 02:20:07 | Re: Prepare enabled pgbench |