Re: 64-bit size pgbench

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Greg Smith <greg(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
Cc: PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: 64-bit size pgbench
Date: 2010-01-29 16:09:57
Message-ID: 3717.1264781397@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Greg Smith <greg(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> writes:
> Was looking for general feedback on whether the way I've converted this
> to use 64 bit integers for the account numbers seems appropriate, and to
> see if there's any objection to fixing this in general given the
> potential downsides.

In the past we've rejected proposed patches for pgbench on the grounds
that they would make results non-comparable to previous results. So the
key question here is how much this affects the speed. Please be sure to
test that on a 32-bit machine, not a 64-bit one.

> ! retval = (int64) strtol(res, &endptr, 19);

That bit is merely wishful thinking :-(

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Robert Haas 2010-01-29 16:19:57 Re: quoting psql varible as identifier
Previous Message Pavel Stehule 2010-01-29 16:07:19 Re: ordered aggregates using WITHIN GROUP (was Re: can somebody execute this query on Oracle 11.2g and send result?)