| From: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Bort, Paul" <pbort(at)tmwsystems(dot)com> |
| Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Adding a pgbench run to buildfarm |
| Date: | 2006-07-24 17:02:03 |
| Message-ID: | 44C4FD0B.3080601@dunslane.net |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Bort, Paul wrote:
> Given the concerns about running this on machines that don't have a lot
> of CPU and disk to spare, should it ship disabled?
>
Yes, certainly.
> Andrew, what do you think of pgbench reports shipping separately? I have
> no idea how the server end is set up, so I don't know how much of a pain
> that would be.
>
>
>
Well, we'll need to put in some changes to collect the data, certainly.
I don't see why we shouldn't ship the pgbench result separately, but ...
> P.S. My current thought for settings is scaling factor 10, users 5,
> transactions 1000.
>
>
... at this size it's hardly worth it. A quick test on my laptop showed
this taking about a minute for the setup and another minute for the run,
Unless we scale way beyond this I don't see any point in separate reporting.
cheers
andrew
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Nicolai Petri | 2006-07-24 17:06:23 | Getting current transaction id |
| Previous Message | Nicolai Petri | 2006-07-24 17:01:54 | Re: inclusion of hstore software in main tarball |