| From: | Amit Langote <Langote_Amit_f8(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp> |
|---|---|
| To: | Fabien COELHO <coelho(at)cri(dot)ensmp(dot)fr>, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
| Cc: | PostgreSQL Developers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: pgbench throttling latency limit |
| Date: | 2015-10-22 09:37:44 |
| Message-ID: | 5628AE68.4090204@lab.ntt.co.jp |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 2015/10/22 18:20, Fabien COELHO wrote:
>>
>>> progress: 365.0 s, 18392.1 tps, lat 94.857 ms stddev 23.917, lag 90.980
>>> ms, 106244 skipped
>>>
>>> 100k skipped transactions at a rate limit of 40k? That doesn't seem right.
>>
>> Argh. It's just because I used -P5. It's a bit confusing that the other
>> options are per second, and this is per interval...
>
> I agree, but I'm unsure of a fix, beyond what is already done which is to
> show units next to the figures...
>
> ISTM that people expect "tps" for performance, even on several seconds.
> When it comes to skipped transactions, a count seemed more natural. I
> really just see this as an indicator that things are not going smoothly.
>
> Maybe it could be shown as a percentage of scheduled transactions,
> possibly with an option?
>
> A mitigation is to always run with -P 1 :-).
Wouldn't printing average (per second) over the interval work?
Thanks,
Amit
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Michael Paquier | 2015-10-22 11:48:22 | Re: [PATCH v3] GSSAPI encryption support |
| Previous Message | Fabien COELHO | 2015-10-22 09:20:42 | Re: pgbench throttling latency limit |