| From: | Tatsuo Ishii <ishii(at)sraoss(dot)co(dot)jp> |
|---|---|
| To: | nagata(at)sraoss(dot)co(dot)jp |
| Cc: | ishii(at)sraoss(dot)co(dot)jp, coelho(at)cri(dot)ensmp(dot)fr, masao(dot)fujii(at)oss(dot)nttdata(dot)com, asifr(dot)rehman(at)gmail(dot)com, pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Fix around conn_duration in pgbench |
| Date: | 2021-08-31 06:39:18 |
| Message-ID: | 20210831.153918.1718001520194074466.t-ishii@sraoss.co.jp |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
>> >> > My 0.02€: From a benchmarking perspective, ISTM that it makes sense to
>> >> > include disconnection times, which are clearly linked to connections,
>> >> > especially with -C. So I'd rather have the more meaningful figure even
>> >> > at the price of a small change in an undocumented feature.
>> >>
>> >> +1. The aim of -C is trying to measure connection overhead which
>> >> naturally includes disconnection overhead.
>> >
>> > I think it is better to measure disconnection delays when -C is specified in
>> > pg 14. This seems not necessary when -C is not specified because pgbench just
>> > reports "initial connection time".
>>
>> Ok.
>>
>> > However, what about pg13 or later? Do you think we should also change the
>> > behavior of pg13 or later? If so, should we measure disconnection delay even
>> > when -C is not specified in pg13?
>>
>> You mean "pg13 or before"?
>
> Sorry, you are right. I mean "pg13 or before".
I would think we should leave as it is for pg13 and before to not surprise users.
--
Tatsuo Ishii
SRA OSS, Inc. Japan
English: http://www.sraoss.co.jp/index_en.php
Japanese:http://www.sraoss.co.jp
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Pengchengliu | 2021-08-31 06:43:02 | RE: suboverflowed subtransactions concurrency performance optimize |
| Previous Message | hubert depesz lubaczewski | 2021-08-31 06:12:21 | Re: Pg stuck at 100% cpu, for multiple days |