Re: pgbench stats per script & other stuff

From: Fabien COELHO <coelho(at)cri(dot)ensmp(dot)fr>
To: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: PostgreSQL Developers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: pgbench stats per script & other stuff
Date: 2015-07-21 16:29:55
Message-ID: alpine.DEB.2.10.1507211819460.30948@sto
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Lists: pgsql-hackers

>>> That is a truly horrifying abuse of command-line arguments. -1 from
>>> me, or minus more than one if I've got that many chits to burn.
>> Are you against the -w, or against saying that pgbench execute scripts,
>> whether internal or from files?
> I'm against the idea that we accept multiple arguments for scripts,

Pgbench *currently* already accept multiple "-f ..." options, and this is
a good thing to test realistic loads which may intermix several kind of
transactions, say a lot of readonly and some update or insert, and very
rare deletes...

Now if you do not need it you do not use it, and all is fine. Once you
have several scripts, being able to "weight" them becomes useful for

> and that a subsequent -w modifies the meaning of the script-specifiying
> argument already read. That strikes me as a very unintuitive interface.

Ok, I understand this "afterward modification" objection.

What if the -w would be required *before*, and supply a weight for (the
first/maybe all) script(s) specified *afterwards*, so it does not modify
something already provided? I think it would be more intuitive, or at
least less surprising.

> I'm not sure exactly what would be better at the moment, but I think we
> need something better.

Maybe -f file.sql:weight (yuk from my point of view, but it can be
done easily).


In response to


Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Alexander Korotkov 2015-07-21 16:32:58 Re: Fillfactor for GIN indexes
Previous Message Alexander Korotkov 2015-07-21 16:28:01 Re: Selectivity estimation for intarray with @@