From: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Fabien COELHO <coelho(at)cri(dot)ensmp(dot)fr>, Asif Rehman <asifr(dot)rehman(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Developers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>, Tomas Vondra <tomas(dot)vondra(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
Subject: | Re: pgbench - allow to create partitioned tables |
Date: | 2019-09-13 13:05:55 |
Message-ID: | 20190913130555.GA7393@alvherre.pgsql |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 2019-Sep-13, Amit Kapila wrote:
> I would like to take inputs from others as well for the display part
> of this patch. After this patch, for a simple-update pgbench test,
> the changed output will be as follows (note: partition method and
> partitions):
> pgbench.exe -c 4 -j 4 -T 10 -N postgres
> starting vacuum...end.
> transaction type: <builtin: simple update>
> scaling factor: 1
> partition method: hash
> partitions: 3
> query mode: simple
> number of clients: 4
> number of threads: 4
> duration: 10 s
> number of transactions actually processed: 14563
> latency average = 2.749 ms
> tps = 1454.899150 (including connections establishing)
> tps = 1466.689412 (excluding connections establishing)
>
> What do others think about this? This will be the case when the user
> has used --partitions option in pgbench, otherwise, it won't change.
I wonder what's the intended usage of this output ... it seems to be
getting a bit too long. Is this intended for machine processing? I
would rather have more things per line in a more compact header.
But then I'm not the kind of person who automates multiple pgbench runs.
Maybe we can get some input from Tomas, who does -- how do you automate
extracting data from collected pgbench output, or do you instead just
redirect the output to a file whose path/name indicates the parameters
that were used? (I do the latter.)
I mean, if we changed it like this (and I'm not proposing to do it in
this patch, this is only an example), would it bother anyone?
$ pgbench -x -y -z ...
starting vacuum...end.
scaling factor: 1 partition method: hash partitions: 1
transaction type: <builtin: simple update> query mode: simple
number of clients: 4 number of threads: 4 duration: 10s
number of transactions actually processed: 14563
latency average = 2.749 ms
tps = 1454.899150 (including connections establishing)
tps = 1466.689412 (excluding connections establishing)
If this output doesn't bother people, then I suggest that this patch
should put the partition information in the line together with scaling
factor.
--
Álvaro Herrera https://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Virendra Negi | 2019-09-13 13:11:24 | Primary keepalive message not appearing in Logical Streaming Replication |
Previous Message | Fujii Masao | 2019-09-13 13:05:31 | Re: [PATCH] Speedup truncates of relation forks |