From: | Fabien COELHO <coelho(at)cri(dot)ensmp(dot)fr> |
---|---|
To: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
Cc: | "Jamison, Kirk" <k(dot)jamison(at)jp(dot)fujitsu(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Developers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: pgbench - doCustom cleanup |
Date: | 2018-11-20 15:21:29 |
Message-ID: | alpine.DEB.2.21.1811201610090.7257@lancre |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
> I didn't quite understand this hunk. Why does it remove the
> is_latencies conditional? (The preceding comment shown here should be
> updated obviously if this change is correct, but I'm not sure it is.)
Pgbench runs benches a collects performance data about it.
I simplified the code to always collect data, without trying to be clever
about cases where these data may not be useful so some collection can be
skipped.
Here the test avoids recording the statement start time, mostly a simple
assignment and then later another test avoids recording the stats in the
same case, which are mostly a few adds.
ISTM that this is over optimization and unlikely to be have any measurable
effects compared to the other tasks performed when executing commands, so
a simpler code is better.
--
Fabien.
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2018-11-20 15:22:12 | Re: incorrect xlog.c coverage report |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2018-11-20 15:14:26 | Re: mysql_fdw crash |