On Sat, Jan 26, 2013 at 11:24 PM, Satoshi Nagayasu <sn...@uptime.jp> wrote:
> Hi, > > I have reviewed this patch. > > https://commitfest.postgresql.org/action/patch_view?id=1068 > > 2012/12/21 Gurjeet Singh <singh.gurj...@gmail.com>: > > The patch is very much what you had posted, except for a couple of > > differences due to bit-rot. (i) I didn't have to #define > MAX_RANDOM_VALUE64 > > since its cousin MAX_RANDOM_VALUE is not used by code anymore, and (ii) I > > used ternary operator in DDLs[] array to decide when to use bigint vs int > > columns. > > > > Please review. > > > > As for tests, I am currently running 'pgbench -i -s 21474' using > > unpatched pgbench, and am recording the time taken;Scale factor 21475 had > > actually failed to do anything meaningful using unpatched pgbench. Next > I'll > > run with '-s 21475' on patched version to see if it does the right thing, > > and in acceptable time compared to '-s 21474'. > > > > What tests would you and others like to see, to get some confidence > in > > the patch? The machine that I have access to has 62 GB RAM, 16-core > > 64-hw-threads, and about 900 GB of disk space. > > I have tested this patch, and hvae confirmed that the columns > for aid would be switched to using bigint, instead of int, > when the scalefactor >= 20,000. > (aid columns would exeed the upper bound of int when sf>21474.) > > Also, I added a few fixes on it. > > - Fixed to apply for the current git master. > - Fixed to surpress few more warnings about INT64_FORMAT. > - Minor improvement in the docs. (just my suggestion) > > I attached the revised one. > Looks good to me. Thanks! -- Gurjeet Singh http://gurjeet.singh.im/
