| From: | Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Fabien COELHO <coelho(at)cri(dot)ensmp(dot)fr>, Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Developers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: pgbench - implement strict TPC-B benchmark |
| Date: | 2019-07-30 23:31:54 |
| Message-ID: | CAH2-Wz=Ex2_xhuvaWY-dP-iVuAgvZL+j3Z+xPjSmRhx0V0PczQ@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Jul 30, 2019 at 3:00 PM Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> TBH, I think we should reject this patch. Nobody cares about TPC-B
> anymore, and they care even less about differences between one
> sort-of-TPC-B test and another sort-of-TPC-B test. (As the lack
> of response on this thread shows.) We don't need this kind of
> baggage in pgbench; it's got too many "features" already.
+1. TPC-B was officially made obsolete in 1995.
> I'm also highly dubious about labeling this script "standard TPC-B",
> when it resolves only some of the reasons why our traditional script
> is not really TPC-B. That's treading on being false advertising.
IANAL, but it may not even be permissible to claim that we have
implemented "standard TPC-B".
--
Peter Geoghegan
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Robert Haas | 2019-07-30 23:35:56 | Re: Avoiding hash join batch explosions with extreme skew and weird stats |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2019-07-30 23:31:10 | Re: Runtime pruning problem |