From: | Fabien COELHO <coelho(at)cri(dot)ensmp(dot)fr> |
---|---|
To: | Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnakangas(at)vmware(dot)com> |
Cc: | Rukh Meski <rukh(dot)meski(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Developers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: pgbench throttling latency limit |
Date: | 2014-08-29 11:34:38 |
Message-ID: | alpine.DEB.2.10.1408291252410.23808@sto |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Hello Heikki,
> This now begs the question:
>
> In --rate mode, shouldn't the reported transaction latency also be calculated
> from the *scheduled* start time, not the time the transaction actually
> started? Otherwise we're using two different definitions of "latency", one
> for the purpose of the limit, and another for reporting.
It could. Find a small patch **on top of v5** which does that. I've tried
to update the documentation accordingly as well.
Note that the information is already there as the average lag time is
reported, ISTM that:
avg latency2 ~ avg lag + avg latency1
so it is just a matter of choice, both are ok somehow. I would be fine
with both.
--
Fabien.
Attachment | Content-Type | Size |
---|---|---|
pgbench-limit-5b.patch | text/x-diff | 2.4 KB |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Marko Tiikkaja | 2014-08-29 11:53:16 | Re: LIMIT for UPDATE and DELETE |
Previous Message | Etsuro Fujita | 2014-08-29 10:20:31 | Re: LIMIT for UPDATE and DELETE |