| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Fabien COELHO <coelho(at)cri(dot)ensmp(dot)fr> |
| Cc: | Tatsuo Ishii <ishii(at)postgresql(dot)org>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: pgbench --latency-limit option |
| Date: | 2015-12-23 16:27:54 |
| Message-ID: | CA+Tgmob9OhXPwezAje3jCGtaTF3x1RRsxz7AO4+FPLUwPUwcOQ@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, Dec 23, 2015 at 11:23 AM, Fabien COELHO <coelho(at)cri(dot)ensmp(dot)fr> wrote:
>>> Probably no skips though, because the response time needed is below 5
>>> *seconds*, not ms : 2 tps on 10 connections, 1 transaction every 5
>>> seconds
>>> for each connection.
>>
>> Oops. Right. But why did this test only run 16 transactions in total
>> instead of 20?
>
> Because the schedule is based on a stochastic process, transactions are not
> set regularly (that would induce patterns and is not representative of
> real-life load) but randomly.
>
> The long term average is expected to converge to 2 tps, but on a short run
> it may differ significantly.
Hmm. Is that documented somewhere?
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2015-12-23 16:44:53 | Re: BUG #13741: vacuumdb does not accept valid password |
| Previous Message | Fabien COELHO | 2015-12-23 16:23:10 | Re: pgbench --latency-limit option |