From: | Peter Geoghegan <peter(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Jeff Janes <jeff(dot)janes(at)gmail(dot)com>, Greg Smith <greg(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: pgbench--new transaction type |
Date: | 2012-06-20 18:41:49 |
Message-ID: | CAEYLb_XSuKvc3Kg7Q8sOsPEDPJqHsagRRwOCZLjgVwPJb7o5Sw@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 20 June 2012 18:42, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 20, 2012 at 3:48 AM, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
>> I'm sure Jeff submitted this because of the need for a standard test,
>> rather than the wish to actually modify pgbench itself.
>>
>> Can I suggest that we include a list of standard scripts with pgbench
>> for this purpose? These can then be copied alongside the binary when
>> we do an install.
>
> I was thinking along similar lines myself. At the least, I think we
> can't continue to add a short option for every new test type.
> Instead, maybe we could have --test-type=WHATEVER, and perhaps that
> then reads whatever.sql from some compiled-in directory. That would
> allow us to sanely support a moderately large number of tests.
+1. As long as pgbench is considered to be the standard benchmarking
tool (and I think that it is a general problem that it is), we ought
to make an effort to give people more options.
--
Peter Geoghegan http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training and Services
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Andres Freund | 2012-06-20 18:42:28 | Re: [PATCH 10/16] Introduce the concept that wal has a 'origin' node |
Previous Message | Heikki Linnakangas | 2012-06-20 18:32:53 | Re: [PATCH 10/16] Introduce the concept that wal has a 'origin' node |