On Sun, Oct 06, 2013 at 09:48:04AM +0200, Fabien COELHO wrote:
> Also, I'm not sure of any system used with pgbench that do not have
> threads, so ISTM that the thread fork-emulation hack is more or less
> useless, and it is pretty masochistic to maintain when adding
> features.
Fair point. When
Note that this is pretty standard stuff with threads, ISTM that it
would solve most of the issues, *but* this is not possible with the
"thread fork emulation" implemented by pgbench, which really means
no threads at all.
You could do those same things in the fork emulation mode using anonymous
On Tue, Oct 01, 2013 at 02:50:29PM +0200, Fabien COELHO wrote:
> I do not think that there is a clean and simple way to take the
> start/stop period into account when computing global performances of
> a run. The TPC-C benchmark tells to ignore the warmup/closure
> period, whatever they are, and on
Hello Noah,
Thread create time seems to be expensive as well, maybe up 0.1
seconds under some conditions (?). Under --rate, this create delay
means that throttling is laging behind schedule by about that time,
so all the first transactions are trying to catch up.
threadRun() already initializ
[oops, resent because stalled, wrong From!]
Hello Noah,
Thread create time seems to be expensive as well, maybe up 0.1
seconds under some conditions (?). Under --rate, this create delay
means that throttling is laging behind schedule by about that time,
so all the first transactions are trying
On Thu, Sep 26, 2013 at 01:41:01PM +0200, Fabien COELHO wrote:
> >I don't get it; why is taking the time just after pthread_create() more sane
> >than taking it just before pthread_create()?
>
> Thread create time seems to be expensive as well, maybe up 0.1
> seconds under some conditions (?). Und
pgbench changes, when adding the throttling stuff. Having the start time
taken when the thread really starts is just sanity, and I needed that
just to rule out that it was the source of the "strange" measures.
I don't get it; why is taking the time just after pthread_create() more sane
than ta
Concerning one of the eventual would-be split patches...
On Tue, Sep 24, 2013 at 10:41:17PM +0200, Fabien COELHO wrote:
> - Take thread start time at the beginning of the thread (!)
>
>Otherwise it includes pretty slow thread/fork system start times in
>the measurements. May help with bug