| From: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Fabien COELHO <coelho(at)cri(dot)ensmp(dot)fr> |
| Cc: | "Jamison, Kirk" <k(dot)jamison(at)jp(dot)fujitsu(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Developers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: pgbench - doCustom cleanup |
| Date: | 2018-11-20 22:43:19 |
| Message-ID: | 20181120224319.ipc3drcrkp4cy4dj@alvherre.pgsql |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 2018-Nov-20, Fabien COELHO wrote:
>
> > I didn't quite understand this hunk. Why does it remove the
> > is_latencies conditional? (The preceding comment shown here should be
> > updated obviously if this change is correct, but I'm not sure it is.)
>
> Pgbench runs benches a collects performance data about it.
>
> I simplified the code to always collect data, without trying to be clever
> about cases where these data may not be useful so some collection can be
> skipped.
>
> Here the test avoids recording the statement start time, mostly a simple
> assignment and then later another test avoids recording the stats in the
> same case, which are mostly a few adds.
>
> ISTM that this is over optimization and unlikely to be have any measurable
> effects compared to the other tasks performed when executing commands, so a
> simpler code is better.
I don't think we're quite ready to buy this argument just yet.
See https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/flat/31856(dot)1400021891(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us
--
Álvaro Herrera https://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2018-11-20 22:48:39 | Re: pgbench - doCustom cleanup |
| Previous Message | Thomas Munro | 2018-11-20 21:54:26 | Re: Shared Memory: How to use SYSV rather than MMAP ? |