On 07/21/2015 10:25 PM, Fabien COELHO wrote: > > Hello Josh, > >>> Maybe -f file.sql:weight (yuk from my point of view, but it can be done >>> easily). >> >> Maybe it's past time for pgbench to have a config file? > > That is an idea. For "simple" usage, for backward compatibility and for > people like me who like them, ISTM that options are fine too:-) > > Also this may mean adding a dependency to some YAML library, configure > issues (I'm not sure whether pg currently uses YAML, and JSON is quite > verbose), maybe conditionals around the feature to compile without the > dependency, more documentation... > > I'm not sure all that is desirable just for weighting scripts.
Maybe not. If so, I would vote for: -f script1.bench:3 -f script2.bench:1 over: -f script1.bench -w 3 -f script2.bench -w 1 Making command-line options order-dependant breaks a lot of system call libraries in various languages, as well as being easy to mess up. >> Given that we want to define some per-workload options, the config file >> would probably need to be YAML or JSON, e.g.: >> >> [...] >> >> script1: >> file: script1.bench >> weight: 3 >> script2: >> file: script2.bench >> weight: 1 >> >> the above would execute a pgbench with 16 clients, 4 threads, "script1" >> three times as often as script2, and report stats at the script (rather >> than SQL statement) level. > > Yep. Probably numbering within field names should be avoided, so a list > of records that could look like: Oh, you misunderstand. "script1" and "script2" are meant to be user-supplied names which then get reported in things like response time output. They're labels. Better example: deposit: file: deposit.bench weight: 3 withdrawal: file: withdrawal.bench weight: 3 reporting: file: summary_report.bench weigh: 1 -- Josh Berkus PostgreSQL Experts Inc. http://pgexperts.com -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers