| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tatsuo Ishii <ishii(at)sraoss(dot)co(dot)jp> |
| Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: pgbench enhancements |
| Date: | 2006-07-26 14:58:02 |
| Message-ID: | 1879.1153925882@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Tatsuo Ishii <ishii(at)sraoss(dot)co(dot)jp> writes:
> BTW, running long benchmark using pgbench on BIG tables easily causes
> an integer overflow error in following SQLs:
Right.
> I'm inclined to change abalance, tbalance and bbalance column to
> BIGINT to avoid the error. Opinion?
No. The problem is that the deltas are invariably positive, which is
not realistic (at least *my* bank balance isn't uniformly increasing :-().
I think the correct fix is just to tweak the range of the randomly
distributed deltas to be plus and minus not always plus.
If you change to bigint then post-change results won't be strictly
comparable to pre-change results because of the difference in execution
costs.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2006-07-26 15:01:41 | Re: Better name/syntax for "online" index creation |
| Previous Message | Gregory Stark | 2006-07-26 14:55:51 | Re: patch implementing the multi-argument aggregates (SOC project) |