Re: pgbench stats per script & other stuff

From: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>
Cc: Fabien COELHO <coelho(at)cri(dot)ensmp(dot)fr>, Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: pgbench stats per script & other stuff
Date: 2015-09-03 00:44:35
Message-ID: CA+TgmoY89bY7eSpQJpKTvj2oGPQSA3MoT0nfJYZ7T=zamvHL-A@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Wed, Sep 2, 2015 at 5:55 PM, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> wrote:
> On 2015-09-02 14:36:51 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
>> On Wed, Sep 2, 2015 at 2:20 PM, Fabien COELHO <coelho(at)cri(dot)ensmp(dot)fr> wrote:
>> >> I'm wondering if percentages instead of weights would be a better
>> >> idea. That'd mean you'd be forced to be more careful when adding another
>> >> script (having to adjust the percentages of other scripts) but arguably
>> >> that's a good thing?
>> >
>> > If you use only percent, then you have to check that the total is 100,
>> > probably you have to use floats, to do something when the total is not 100,
>> > checking would complicate the code and test people mental calculus
>> > abilities. Not sure this is a good idea:-)
>>
>> I agree. I don't see a reason to enforce that the total of the
>> weights must be 100.
>
> I'm slightly worried that using weights will be a bit confusing because
> adding another script will obviously reduce the frequency of already
> defined scripts. But it's probably not worth worrying.

That sounds like a feature to me, not a bug. I wouldn't worry.

--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Michael Paquier 2015-09-03 00:47:49 Re: src/test/ssl broken on HEAD
Previous Message Robert Haas 2015-09-03 00:44:05 Re: exposing pg_controldata and pg_config as functions