Re: [PERFORM] pgbench to the MAXINT

On Sat, Jan 26, 2013 at 11:24 PM, Satoshi Nagayasu <snaga(at)uptime(dot)jp> wrote:

> Hi,
>
> I have reviewed this patch.
>
> https://commitfest.postgresql.org/action/patch_view?id=1068
>
> 2012/12/21 Gurjeet Singh <singh(dot)gurjeet(at)gmail(dot)com>:
> > The patch is very much what you had posted, except for a couple of
> > differences due to bit-rot. (i) I didn't have to #define
> MAX_RANDOM_VALUE64
> > since its cousin MAX_RANDOM_VALUE is not used by code anymore, and (ii) I
> > used ternary operator in DDLs[] array to decide when to use bigint vs int
> > columns.
> >
> > Please review.
> >
> > As for tests, I am currently running 'pgbench -i -s 21474' using
> > unpatched pgbench, and am recording the time taken;Scale factor 21475 had
> > actually failed to do anything meaningful using unpatched pgbench. Next
> I'll
> > run with '-s 21475' on patched version to see if it does the right thing,
> > and in acceptable time compared to '-s 21474'.
> >
> > What tests would you and others like to see, to get some confidence
> in
> > the patch? The machine that I have access to has 62 GB RAM, 16-core
> > 64-hw-threads, and about 900 GB of disk space.
>
> I have tested this patch, and hvae confirmed that the columns
> for aid would be switched to using bigint, instead of int,
> when the scalefactor >= 20,000.
> (aid columns would exeed the upper bound of int when sf>21474.)
>
> Also, I added a few fixes on it.
>
> - Fixed to apply for the current git master.
> - Fixed to surpress few more warnings about INT64_FORMAT.
> - Minor improvement in the docs. (just my suggestion)
>
> I attached the revised one.
>

Looks good to me. Thanks!

--
Gurjeet Singh

http://gurjeet.singh.im/