Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> "ITAGAKI Takahiro" <itagaki(dot)takahiro(at)oss(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp> writes:
> > All of filler fields in branches, tellers and history is NULL. It is
> > probabbly a mistake because there are fields of char(22-88) in the table
> > definitions.
> > TPC-B requires at least 100 bytes per row for all tables used in it.
> I'm not in favor of changing this. pgbench has never pretended to be
> "really" TPC-B, nor has anyone ever tried to compare its numbers against
> other TPC-B numbers. On the other hand, people *do* compare pgbench
> numbers to itself over time, and if we make a change like this it will
> break comparability of the results.
Ok, I feel it reasonable.
The attached is a patch to mention it in the source code.
NTT Open Source Software Center
In response to
pgsql-bugs by date
|Next:||From: Julius Stroffek||Date: 2007-10-18 13:20:05|
|Subject: Re: 'on insert do instead' rule with a where clause responds
'INSERT 0 0'|
|Previous:||From: Douglas Toltzman||Date: 2007-10-18 01:17:55|
|Subject: Re: BUG #3680: memory leak when excuting a SQL "selectcount(id) from chinatelecom;"|
pgsql-patches by date
|Next:||From: Jacky Leng||Date: 2007-10-18 06:04:15|
|Subject: Re: Why copy_relation_data only use wal when WALarchiving is enabled|
|Previous:||From: Jacky Leng||Date: 2007-10-18 01:27:49|
|Subject: Re: Why copy_relation_data only use wal whenWALarchivingis enabled|