| From: | Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | "Jonah H(dot) Harris" <jonah(dot)harris(at)gmail(dot)com>, 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: | 2019-07-31 21:21:39 |
| Message-ID: | CAH2-WzntbB6C0jBuNQ6NXuBCrN-jD2xLsutPe3KCtw6W9_eoxg@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, Jul 31, 2019 at 2:11 PM Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> > I agree with this. When I was at EnterpriseDB, while it wasn't audited, we
> > had to develop an actual TPC-B implementation because pgbench was too
> > different. pgbench itself isn't that useful as a benchmark tool, imo, but
> > if we have the ability to make it better (i.e. closer to an actual
> > benchmark kit), I think we should.
>
> [ shrug... ] TBH, the proposed patch does not look to me like actual
> benchmark kit; it looks like a toy. Nobody who was intent on making their
> benchmark numbers look good would do a significant amount of work in a
> slow, ad-hoc interpreted language.
According to TPC themselves, "In contrast to TPC-A, TPC-B is not an
OLTP benchmark. Rather, TPC-B can be looked at as a database stress
test..." [1]. Sounds like classic pgbench to me.
Not sure where that leaves this patch. What problem is it actually
trying to solve?
[1] http://www.tpc.org/tpcb/
--
Peter Geoghegan
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Julien Rouhaud | 2019-07-31 21:51:40 | Re: Feature improvement: can we add queryId for pg_catalog.pg_stat_activity view? |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2019-07-31 21:11:54 | Re: pgbench - implement strict TPC-B benchmark |