Re: Fix around conn_duration in pgbench

From: Yugo NAGATA <nagata(at)sraoss(dot)co(dot)jp>
To: Tatsuo Ishii <ishii(at)sraoss(dot)co(dot)jp>
Cc: 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 06:03:26
Message-ID: 20210831150326.5170a9fa068b22b740d62db3@sraoss.co.jp
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Tue, 31 Aug 2021 14:46:42 +0900 (JST)
Tatsuo Ishii <ishii(at)sraoss(dot)co(dot)jp> wrote:

> >> > 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".

> --
> Tatsuo Ishii
> SRA OSS, Inc. Japan
> English: http://www.sraoss.co.jp/index_en.php
> Japanese:http://www.sraoss.co.jp

--
Yugo NAGATA <nagata(at)sraoss(dot)co(dot)jp>

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message hubert depesz lubaczewski 2021-08-31 06:07:27 Re: Can we get rid of repeated queries from pg_dump?
Previous Message Gurjeet Singh 2021-08-31 05:56:44 Re: Returning to Postgres community work