Re: pgbench progress report improvements

From: Fabien COELHO <coelho(at)cri(dot)ensmp(dot)fr>
To: Rod Taylor <rod(dot)taylor(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: PostgreSQL Developers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: pgbench progress report improvements
Date: 2013-09-21 15:02:14
Message-ID: alpine.DEB.2.02.1309211653220.18614@sto
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers


>> Moreover, using 'xxx=figure" breaks simple "cut" pipelining to extract the
>> figures, so I would prefer to stick to spaces.
>>
>> Maybe:
>>
>> progress: 36.0 s, 115.2 tps, lat avg 9.678 ms stddev 1.792, lag 0.143 ms
>>
>> but I liked my "+-" approach:-)
>
> 100 +- 3 implies a range of 97 to 103 and no values are outside of that
> range.

This is one of the possible meaning, but ISTM that it is not exclusive.
Anyway here we do not have a symmetric distribution of run times.

Well, it seems I'm alone in liking my +-, so I'll backtrack on that.

--
Fabien.

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Jim Nasby 2013-09-21 17:06:16 Re: Assertions in PL/PgSQL
Previous Message Rod Taylor 2013-09-21 13:45:48 Re: pgbench progress report improvements