Tom Lane wrote:
In the past we've rejected proposed patches for pgbench on the grounds
that they would make results non-comparable to previous results. So the
key question here is how much this affects the speed. Please be sure to
test that on a 32-bit machine, not a 64-bit one.
Sheesh, wh
On Fri, Jan 29, 2010 at 11:09 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Greg Smith writes:
>> Was looking for general feedback on whether the way I've converted this
>> to use 64 bit integers for the account numbers seems appropriate, and to
>> see if there's any objection to fixing this in general given the
>> pote
Greg Smith writes:
> Was looking for general feedback on whether the way I've converted this
> to use 64 bit integers for the account numbers seems appropriate, and to
> see if there's any objection to fixing this in general given the
> potential downsides.
In the past we've rejected proposed
Greg Smith wrote:
> Attached is a patch that fixes a long standing bug in pgbench: it won't
> handle scale factors above ~4000 (around 60GB) because it uses 32-bit
> integers for its computations related to the number of accounts, and it
> just crashes badly when you exceed that. This month
Attached is a patch that fixes a long standing bug in pgbench: it won't
handle scale factors above ~4000 (around 60GB) because it uses 32-bit
integers for its computations related to the number of accounts, and it
just crashes badly when you exceed that. This month I've run into two
systems w
