| From: | Fabien COELHO <coelho(at)cri(dot)ensmp(dot)fr> |
|---|---|
| To: | Haribabu Kommi <kommi(dot)haribabu(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>, Jeevan Ladhe <jeevan(dot)ladhe(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Developers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: pgbench more operators & functions |
| Date: | 2016-12-02 10:53:05 |
| Message-ID: | alpine.DEB.2.20.1612021140410.27002@lancre |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Hello,
> Sorry for the changing the status of the patch against to the current
> status. While going through the recent mails, I thought that there is
> some disagreement from committer.
If so, I'm willing to explain again why these operators are useful for
writing some benchmarks, for instance, this paragraph taken randomly from
the TPC-B specification, on page 16:
"""
The Account_ID is generated as follows:
• A random number X is generated within [0,1]
• If X<0.85 or branches = 1, a random Account_ID is selected over all <Branch_ID> accounts.
• If X>=0.85 and branches > 1, a random Account_ID is selected over all non-<Branch_ID> accounts.
"""
This extracy suggests clearly that having some comparison operators and
some ability to act upon the comparison result is required to implement
this particular benchmark, which is beyond pgbench current capabilities.
> Moved to next CF with "ready for committer" status.
Ok. We'll see next time what becomes of it...
--
Fabien.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Vladimir Rusinov | 2016-12-02 11:28:25 | Re: s/xlog/wal/ in tools and function names? |
| Previous Message | Tobias Bussmann | 2016-12-02 10:01:20 | Re: Parallel execution and prepared statements |