| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | KONDO Mitsumasa <kondo(dot)mitsumasa(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp> |
| Cc: | Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnakangas(at)vmware(dot)com>, Fabien COELHO <coelho(at)cri(dot)ensmp(dot)fr>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: gaussian distribution pgbench |
| Date: | 2014-03-17 13:37:18 |
| Message-ID: | 6167.1395063438@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
KONDO Mitsumasa <kondo(dot)mitsumasa(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp> writes:
> (2014/03/17 18:02), Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
>> On 03/17/2014 10:40 AM, KONDO Mitsumasa wrote:
>> There is an infinite number of variants of the TPC-B test that we could include
>> in pgbench. If we start adding every one of them, we're quickly going to have
>> hundreds of options to choose the workload. I'd like to keep pgbench simple.
>> These two new test variants, gaussian and exponential, are not that special that
>> they'd deserve to be included in the program itself.
> Well, I add only two options, and they are major distribution that are seen in
> real database system than uniform distiribution. I'm afraid, I think you are too
> worried and it will not be added hundreds of options. And pgbench is still simple.
FWIW, I concur with Heikki on this. Adding new versions of \setrandom is
useful functionality. Embedding them in the "standard" test is not,
because that just makes it (even) less standard. And pgbench has too darn
many switches already.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Mitsumasa KONDO | 2014-03-17 13:44:38 | Re: [RFC] What should we do for reliable WAL archiving? |
| Previous Message | Andres Freund | 2014-03-17 13:20:03 | Re: Changeset Extraction v7.9.1 |