Re: Fix around conn_duration in pgbench

From: Tatsuo Ishii <ishii(at)sraoss(dot)co(dot)jp>
To: nagata(at)sraoss(dot)co(dot)jp
Cc: ishii(at)sraoss(dot)co(dot)jp, coelho(at)cri(dot)ensmp(dot)fr, masao(dot)fujii(at)oss(dot)nttdata(dot)com, asifr(dot)rehman(at)gmail(dot)com, pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Fix around conn_duration in pgbench
Date: 2021-08-31 06:39:18
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Lists: pgsql-hackers

>> >> > My 0.02€: From a benchmarking perspective, ISTM that it makes sense to
>> >> > include disconnection times, which are clearly linked to connections,
>> >> > especially with -C. So I'd rather have the more meaningful figure even
>> >> > at the price of a small change in an undocumented feature.
>> >>
>> >> +1. The aim of -C is trying to measure connection overhead which
>> >> naturally includes disconnection overhead.
>> >
>> > I think it is better to measure disconnection delays when -C is specified in
>> > pg 14. This seems not necessary when -C is not specified because pgbench just
>> > reports "initial connection time".
>> Ok.
>> > However, what about pg13 or later? Do you think we should also change the
>> > behavior of pg13 or later? If so, should we measure disconnection delay even
>> > when -C is not specified in pg13?
>> You mean "pg13 or before"?
> Sorry, you are right. I mean "pg13 or before".

I would think we should leave as it is for pg13 and before to not surprise users.
Tatsuo Ishii
SRA OSS, Inc. Japan

In response to


Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Pengchengliu 2021-08-31 06:43:02 RE: suboverflowed subtransactions concurrency performance optimize
Previous Message hubert depesz lubaczewski 2021-08-31 06:12:21 Re: Pg stuck at 100% cpu, for multiple days