Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: Some minor changes to pgbench

From: "Joshua D(dot) Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, PostgreSQL-patches <pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Some minor changes to pgbench
Date: 2006-08-23 14:21:31
Message-ID: 44EC646B.4040103@commandprompt.com (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackerspgsql-patches
Tom Lane wrote:
> "Joshua D. Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com> writes:
>> Tom Lane wrote:
>>> Addition of foreign key checking will certainly impact performance
>>> significantly.
> 
>> That is kind of the point. Without foreign keys it is a flawed test 
>> because you wouldn't be running in production without them and thus you 
>> can't bench without them.
> 
> pgbench is not about reality, though.  If we can't rely on it to give
> consistent results across versions then I don't think it's useful at all.
> There are many other benchmarks you can run that do speak to reality
> (eg OSDL's work).

Would it be worthwhile to add a switch so that the foreign key test is 
only used "if" they use the switch in conjunction with a -i?

Joshua D. Drake


> 
> 			regards, tom lane
> 


-- 

    === The PostgreSQL Company: Command Prompt, Inc. ===
Sales/Support: +1.503.667.4564 || 24x7/Emergency: +1.800.492.2240
    Providing the most comprehensive  PostgreSQL solutions since 1997
              http://www.commandprompt.com/



In response to

Responses

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Tom LaneDate: 2006-08-23 14:35:26
Subject: Re: Question about (lazy) vacuum
Previous:From: Tom LaneDate: 2006-08-23 14:12:25
Subject: Re: Some minor changes to pgbench

pgsql-patches by date

Next:From: Alvaro HerreraDate: 2006-08-23 14:53:39
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] COPY view
Previous:From: Tom LaneDate: 2006-08-23 14:12:25
Subject: Re: Some minor changes to pgbench

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group