| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | "ITAGAKI Takahiro" <itagaki(dot)takahiro(at)oss(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp> |
| Cc: | pgsql-bugs(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: BUG #3681: fillers are NULL in pgbench |
| Date: | 2007-10-17 15:47:34 |
| Message-ID: | 6703.1192636054@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-bugs pgsql-patches |
"ITAGAKI Takahiro" <itagaki(dot)takahiro(at)oss(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp> writes:
> All of filler fields in branches, tellers and history is NULL. It is
> probabbly a mistake because there are fields of char(22-88) in the table
> definitions.
> TPC-B requires at least 100 bytes per row for all tables used in it.
I'm not in favor of changing this. pgbench has never pretended to be
"really" TPC-B, nor has anyone ever tried to compare its numbers against
other TPC-B numbers. On the other hand, people *do* compare pgbench
numbers to itself over time, and if we make a change like this it will
break comparability of the results.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Kevin Grittner | 2007-10-17 17:35:23 | Re: BUG #3680: memory leak when excuting a SQL "select count(id) from chinatelecom;" |
| Previous Message | ITAGAKI Takahiro | 2007-10-17 08:10:07 | BUG #3681: fillers are NULL in pgbench |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Simon Riggs | 2007-10-17 16:33:22 | Re: Why copy_relation_data only use wal whenWALarchiving is enabled |
| Previous Message | Heikki Linnakangas | 2007-10-17 14:07:46 | Re: Why copy_relation_data only use wal when WALarchiving is enabled |