Robert Haas writes:
> On Tue, Nov 21, 2017 at 3:28 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>> or just
>> ... latency limit: 33/33 (100.000 %)
> Oh, yeah. That last one sounds good; no reason to print the same
> value more than once.
Sold; I'll go make it so.
regards, tom lane
On Tue, Nov 21, 2017 at 3:28 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Seems like a good idea, but the way you've written it is inconsistent
> with the "n/m" notation used just above. I'd suggest
>
> ... latency limit: 33 (33/33, 100.000 %)
>
> or just
>
> ... latency limit: 33/33 (100.000 %)
Oh, yeah. That last o
Robert Haas writes:
> On Mon, Nov 20, 2017 at 1:40 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>> I dunno, it just looks odd to me that when we've set up a test case in
>> which every one of the transactions is guaranteed to exceed the latency
>> limit, that it doesn't say that they all did. I don't particularly buy
>>
On Mon, Nov 20, 2017 at 1:40 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> I dunno, it just looks odd to me that when we've set up a test case in
> which every one of the transactions is guaranteed to exceed the latency
> limit, that it doesn't say that they all did. I don't particularly buy
> your assumption that the p
Hello Tom,
2. ISTM that we should report that 100% of the transactions were
above the latency limit, not 33%; that is, the appropriate base
for the "number of transactions above the latency limit" percentage
is the number of actual transactions not the number of scheduled
transactions.
Hmmm.
Fabien COELHO writes:
>> 1. The per-script stats shouldn't be printed at all if there's
>> only one script. They're redundant with the overall stats.
> Indeed.
> I think the output should tend to be the same for possible automatic
> processing, whether there is one script or more, even at the p
Hello Tom,
Thanks for having a look at this bug fix.
So we fixed the reported TPS rate, which was nowhere near reality,
and the per-script stats are sane now. Good so far, but this
still has two problems IMO:
1. The per-script stats shouldn't be printed at all if there's
only one script. Th
Hello Steve,
Here is the hopefully right version, which passes tests here.
This version seems fine.
I think it is ready for a committer
Ok, thanks for the debug!
--
Fabien.
On Mon, 13 Nov 2017, Fabien COELHO wrote:
Hello Steve,
printf("number of transactions actually processed: "
INT64_FORMAT "/%d\n",
- total->cnt - total->skipped, nxacts * nclients);
+ total->cnt, nxacts * nclients);
I think you
Hello Steve,
printf("number of transactions actually processed: " INT64_FORMAT
"/%d\n",
- total->cnt - total->skipped, nxacts * nclients);
+ total->cnt, nxacts * nclients);
I think you want ntx instead of total->cnt here.
Inde
10 matches
Mail list logo
