> Here is a updated patch to add query modes into pgbench in order to
> measure performance of simple protocol, extended protocol and
> prepared statements with it.
> [PATCHES] Patch for testing query modes on pgbench
> A new runtime option (-M) is added:
> -M querymode
> Choose the query mode from the follows. default is simple.
> - simple: using simple query protocol.
> - extended: using extended protocol.
> - prepared: using extended protocol with prepared statements.
> Extended protocol is slower than simple protocol. I think it is a problem
> because we have to use the protocol (and cannot use prepared statements)
> in some situations, such as connectiong with JDBC to partitioned tables.
> $ pgbench -S -n -c5 -t10000 -M simple
> tps = 3567.351598 (excluding connections establishing)
> $ pgbench -S -n -c5 -t10000 -M extended
> tps = 2877.697842 (excluding connections establishing)
> $ pgbench -S -n -c5 -t10000 -M prepared
> tps = 4532.680627 (excluding connections establishing)
> ITAGAKI Takahiro
> NTT Open Source Software Center
I got following:
gcc -O2 -Wall -Wmissing-prototypes -Wpointer-arith -Winline -Wendif-labels -fno-strict-aliasing -I../../src/interfaces/libpq -I. -I../../src/include -D_GNU_SOURCE -c -o pgbench.o pgbench.c
pgbench.c: In function `parseQuery':
pgbench.c:1105: error: `var' undeclared (first use in this function)
pgbench.c:1105: error: (Each undeclared identifier is reported only once
pgbench.c:1105: error: for each function it appears in.)
pgbench.c:1092: warning: unused variable `hvar'
(note that the line number might be different what it should be in
your work file since I have applied Yoshiyuki's patches in prior).
The cause of this is obvious and easy to fix. However I wonder this is
because of accidental old or wrong patches. Can you resubmit new patches
against CVS Head?
SRA OSS, Inc. Japan
In response to
pgsql-patches by date
|Next:||From: Tatsuo Ishii||Date: 2008-03-19 00:42:08|
|Subject: Re: Proposal: new large object API|
|Previous:||From: Tatsuo Ishii||Date: 2008-03-19 00:29:56|
|Subject: Re: Wrong result with pgbench -C option?|