| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Fabien COELHO <coelho(at)cri(dot)ensmp(dot)fr>, Steve Singer <steve(at)ssinger(dot)info>, PostgreSQL Developers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: [HACKERS] pgbench regression test failure |
| Date: | 2017-11-21 20:21:56 |
| Message-ID: | CA+TgmoZ8kbPuPC5ERSC8yqtVNoAp_WgpdDtUEvXLnHB3-CoisA@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, Nov 20, 2017 at 1:40 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> I dunno, it just looks odd to me that when we've set up a test case in
> which every one of the transactions is guaranteed to exceed the latency
> limit, that it doesn't say that they all did. I don't particularly buy
> your assumption that the percentages should sum. Anybody else have an
> opinion there?
I agree with you, but I don't think either approach is free from
possible confusion. I think it would help to show the numerator and
the denominator explicitly, e.g.:
number of clients: 1
number of threads: 1
number of transactions per client: 100
number of transactions actually processed: 33/100
number of transactions skipped: 67 (67.000 %)
number of transactions above the 1.0 ms latency limit: 33 (33 of 33, 100.000 %)
(My proposed change is in the last line.)
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Robert Haas | 2017-11-21 20:25:28 | Re: [HACKERS] Moving relation extension locks out of heavyweight lock manager |
| Previous Message | Merlin Moncure | 2017-11-21 20:16:23 | Re: feature request: consume asynchronous notification via a function |