Indeed. The documentation is manually edited when submitting changes so as
to minimize diffs, but then it does not correspond anymore to any actual
output, so it is easy to do it wrong.
Well, you fixed the "latency stddev" line to the sample output too, but
in my trial run that line was not di
Fabien COELHO wrote:
>
> Hello,
>
> >>In doing this, I noticed that the latency output is wrong if you use -T
> >>instead of -t; it always says the latency is zero because "duration" is
> >>zero. I suppose it should be like in the attached instead.
>
> Indeed, I clearly overlooked option -t (tr
Hello,
In doing this, I noticed that the latency output is wrong if you use -T
instead of -t; it always says the latency is zero because "duration" is
zero. I suppose it should be like in the attached instead.
Indeed, I clearly overlooked option -t (transactions) which I never use.
Patch a
Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> In doing this, I noticed that the latency output is wrong if you use -T
> instead of -t; it always says the latency is zero because "duration" is
> zero. I suppose it should be like in the attached instead. At the same
> time, it says "latency average: XYZ" instead of "la
Fabien COELHO wrote:
>
> >- that it does work:-) I'm not sure what happens by the script selection
> > process, it should be checked carefully because it was not designed
> > with allowing a zero weight, and it may depend on its/their positions.
> > It may already work, but it really needs chec
- that it does work:-) I'm not sure what happens by the script selection
process, it should be checked carefully because it was not designed
with allowing a zero weight, and it may depend on its/their positions.
It may already work, but it really needs checking.
Hmmm, it seems ok.
Attac
Hello Jeff,
So I wanted to do something like:
for f in `seq 0 5 100`; do
pgbench -T 180 -c8 -j8 -b tpcb-like@$f -b select-only@100
done;
But, I'm not allowed to specify a weight of zero.
Indeed. I did not envision such a use case, but it is quite legitimate and
interesting! I would hope t
On Fri, Jul 17, 2015 at 6:50 AM, Fabien wrote:
>
> This patch adds per-script statistics & other improvements to pgbench
>
> Rationale: Josh asked for the per-script stats:-)
>
> Some restructuring is done so that all stats (-l --aggregate-interval
> --progress --per-script-stats, latency & lag...
On Sat, Mar 19, 2016 at 11:34 AM, Alvaro Herrera
wrote:
> Jeff Janes wrote:
>> On Sat, Mar 19, 2016 at 8:41 AM, Alvaro Herrera
>> wrote:
>> > I pushed your 25, with some additional minor tweaks. I hope I didn't
>> > break anything; please test.
>>
>> I'm now getting compiler warnings:
>>
>> gcc
Jeff Janes wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 19, 2016 at 8:41 AM, Alvaro Herrera
> wrote:
> > I pushed your 25, with some additional minor tweaks. I hope I didn't
> > break anything; please test.
>
> I'm now getting compiler warnings:
>
> gcc version 4.4.7 20120313 (Red Hat 4.4.7-16) (GCC)
>
>
> pgbench.c
Hello Álvaro,
I pushed your 25, with some additional minor tweaks. I hope I didn't
break anything; please test.
I've made a few tests and all looks well. I guess the build farm will say
if it does not like it.
Thanks,
--
Fabien.
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postg
I pushed your 25, with some additional minor tweaks. I hope I didn't
break anything; please test.
Fabien COELHO wrote:
> >I don't "prefer" memory leaks -- I prefer interfaces that make sense.
>
> C is not designed to return two things, and if it is what is needed it looks
> awkward whatever is
Hello Alvaro,
If somebody specifies thousands of -f switches, they will waste a few
bytes with each, but I'm hardly concerned about a few dozen kilobytes
there ...
Ok, so you prefer a memory leak. I hate it on principle.
I don't "prefer" memory leaks -- I prefer interfaces that make sense.
Fabien COELHO wrote:
> >If somebody specifies thousands of -f switches, they will waste a few
> >bytes with each, but I'm hardly concerned about a few dozen kilobytes
> >there ...
>
> Ok, so you prefer a memory leak. I hate it on principle.
I don't "prefer" memory leaks -- I prefer interfaces th
On 3/4/16 1:53 PM, Fabien COELHO wrote:
>>> That is why the "fs" variable in process_file is declared "static",
>>> and why
>>> I wrote "some hidden awkwarness".
>>>
>>> I did want to avoid a malloc because then who would free the struct?
>>> addScript cannot to it systematically because builtins
That is why the "fs" variable in process_file is declared "static", and why
I wrote "some hidden awkwarness".
I did want to avoid a malloc because then who would free the struct?
addScript cannot to it systematically because builtins are static. Or it
would have to create an on purpose struct,
Fabien COELHO wrote:
> >However, this is still a bit broken -- you cannot return a stack
> >variable from process_file, because the stack goes away once the
> >function returns. You need to malloc it.
>
> That is why the "fs" variable in process_file is declared "static", and why
> I wrote "some
*-21.patch does what you suggested above, some hidden awkwardness
but much less that the previous one.
Yeah, I think this is much nicer, don't you agree?
Yep, I said "less awkwarness than previous", a pretty contrived way to say
better:-)
However, this is still a bit broken -- you
Fabien COELHO wrote:
Hi,
> *-21.patch does what you suggested above, some hidden awkwardness
> but much less that the previous one.
Yeah, I think this is much nicer, don't you agree?
However, this is still a bit broken -- you cannot return a stack
variable from process_file, because the
Hello Alvaro,
I looked at 19.d and I think the design has gotten pretty convoluted. I
think we could simplify with the following changes:
struct script_t gets a new member, of type Command **, which is
initially null.
function process_builtin receives the complete script_t (not individual
me
Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 9, 2016 at 4:22 AM, Fabien COELHO wrote:
> > Hmmm, I type them and I'm not so good with a keyboard, so "se" is better
> > than:
> >
> > "selct-onlyect-only".
>
> I can understand that feeling.
Pushed 19-e, thanks.
--
Álvaro Herrerahttp://ww
I looked at 19.d and I think the design has gotten pretty convoluted. I
think we could simplify with the following changes:
struct script_t gets a new member, of type Command **, which is
initially null.
function process_builtin receives the complete script_t (not individual
memebers of it) cons
Hi Michaël,
Attached 19-d and 19-e.
+/* return builtin script "name", or fail if not found */
builtin does not sound like correct English to me, but built-in is.
I notice that "man bash" uses "builtin" extensively, so I think it is okay
like that, but I would be fine as well with "built-in
On Tue, Feb 9, 2016 at 4:22 AM, Fabien COELHO wrote:
>> + /* compute total_weight */
>> + for (i = 0; i < num_scripts; i++)
>> + {
>> + total_weight += sql_script[i].weight;
>> +
>> + /* detect overflow... */
>> If let as int64, you may want to remove
Hello Michaël,
+ /* compute total_weight */
+ for (i = 0; i < num_scripts; i++)
+ {
+ total_weight += sql_script[i].weight;
+
+ /* detect overflow... */
If let as int64, you may want to remove this overflow check, or keep
it as int32.
I'd rather k
I closed this one as "committed", since we pushed a bunch of parts.
Please submit the two remaining ones to the next commitfest.
--
Álvaro Herrerahttp://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing
On Fri, Feb 5, 2016 at 12:53 AM, Fabien COELHO wrote:
>> Something is wrong with patch d. I noticed two things,
>> 1. the total_weight stuff can overflow,
>
> It can generate an error on overflow by checking the total_weight while it
> is being computed. I've switched total_weight to int64 so it
Hello Alvaro,
Something is wrong with patch d. I noticed two things,
1. the total_weight stuff can overflow,
It can generate an error on overflow by checking the total_weight while
it is being computed. I've switched total_weight to int64 so it is now
really impossible to overflow with th
Hello Michaël,
Two rebase attached.
- 15-e: prefix selection for -b
- if (strncmp(builtin_script[i].name, name,
- strlen(builtin_script[i].name)) == 0)
+ if (strncmp(builtin_script[i].name, name, len) == 0)
I agree with Alv
On Fri, Jan 29, 2016 at 11:28 PM, Fabien COELHO wrote:
> Here is a rebase of the 3 remaining parts:
> - 15-c: per script stats
> - 15-d: weighted scripts
> - 15-e: prefix selection for -b
Regarding patch d.
+ /* compute total_weight */
+ for (i = 0; i < num_scripts; i++)
+
Hello Alvaro,
Thanks for the progress!
I pushed this, along with a few more tweaks, mostly adding comments and
moving functions so that related things are together. I hope I didn't
break anything.
Looks ok.
Here is a rebase of the 3 remaining parts:
- 15-c: per script stats
- 15-d: weigh
Fabien COELHO wrote:
> The answer is essentially yes, the field is needed for the "aggregated" mode
> where this specific behavior is used.
OK, thanks, that looks better to me.
Can you now appreciate why I asked for split patches? If I had to go
over the big patch I probably wouldn't have been
Hello again,
Obviously this would work. I did not think the special case was worth the
extra argument. This one has some oddity too, because the second argument is
ignored depending on the third. Do as you feel.
Actually my question was whether keeping the original start_time was the
intended
Fabien COELHO wrote:
> >It seems a bit funny to have the start_time not be reset when 0.0 is
> >passed, which is almost all the callers. Using a float as a boolean
> >looks pretty odd; is that kosher? Maybe it'd be a good idea to have a
> >separate boolean flag instead?
> Obviously this would w
Hello again,
Here's part b rebased, pgindented and with some minor additional tweaks
(mostly function commands and the function renames I mentioned).
Patch looks ok to me, various tests where ok as well.
Still concerned about the unlocked stat accums.
See my arguments in other mail. I can
Hello again,
If you want to implement real non-ambiguous-prefix code (i.e. have "se"
for "select-only", but reject "s" as ambiguous) be my guest.
I'm fine with filtering out ambiguous cases (i.e. just the "s" case).
Attached a small patch for that.
--
Fabien.diff --git a/doc/src/sgml/ref/p
Hello Alvaro,
I'm not really sure about the fact that we operate on those Stats
structs without locking. I see upthread you convinced Michael that it
was okay, but is it really? How severe is the damage if two threads
happen to collide?
For stats shared among threads, when it occurs one dat
Fabien COELHO wrote:
> a) add -b option for cumulating builtins and rework internal script
>management so that builtin and external scripts are managed the
>same way.
I'm uncomfortable with the prefix-matching aspect of -b. It makes
"-b s" ambiguous -- whether it stands for select-only o
Fabien COELHO wrote:
> a) add -b option for cumulating builtins and rework internal script
>management so that builtin and external scripts are managed the
>same way.
I tweaked this a bit. I found a bug in threadRun: it was reading the
commands first, and setting st->use_file later. Thi
Fabien COELHO wrote:
> You know how delighted I am to split patches...
Yes, of course, it's the most interesting task in the world. I'm fully
aware of that.
FWIW I'm going to apply a preliminary commit to pgindent-clean the file
before your patches, then apply each patch as pgindent-clean. Oth
Hello Alvaro,
I'm looking at this part of your patch and I think it's far too big to
be a simple refactoring. Would you split it up please?
You know how delighted I am to split patches...
Here is a 5 part ordered patch serie:
a) add -b option for cumulating builtins and rework internal scri
Hello Alvaro,
Here is a two part v12, which:
part a (refactoring of scripts and their stats):
- fix option checks (-i alone)
- s/repleacable/replaceable/ in doc
- keep small description in doc and help for -S & -N
- fix 2 comments for pg style
- show builtin list if not found
I'm lookin
Fabien COELHO wrote:
>
> Here is a two part v12, which:
>
> part a (refactoring of scripts and their stats):
> - fix option checks (-i alone)
> - s/repleacable/replaceable/ in doc
> - keep small description in doc and help for -S & -N
> - fix 2 comments for pg style
> - show builtin list if
Hello Michaël,
And then I also had a look at src/port/snprintf.c, where things get
actually weird when no transactions are run for a script (emulated
with 2 scripts, one with @1 and the second with @1):
- 0 transactions (0.0% of total, tps = 0.00)
- latency average = -1.#IO ms
- late
On Wed, Dec 16, 2015 at 4:09 PM, Michael Paquier
wrote:
> Yeah, that's actually fine. I just had a look at Windows stuff, and
> things seem to be correct on this side for double:
> https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/aa691373%28v=vs.71%29.aspx
> And then I also had a look at src/port/snprintf
Here is a two part v12, which:
part a (refactoring of scripts and their stats):
- fix option checks (-i alone)
- s/repleacable/replaceable/ in doc
- keep small description in doc and help for -S & -N
- fix 2 comments for pg style
- show builtin list if not found
part b (weight)
- check th
It seems also that it would be a good idea to split the patch into two
parts:
1) Refactor the code so as the existing test scripts are put under the
same umbrella with addScript, adding at the same time the new option
-b.
2) Add the weight facility and its related statistics.
Sigh. The patch &
On Tue, Dec 15, 2015 at 8:41 PM, Fabien COELHO wrote:
>> PG code usually avoids that, and I recall static analyze tools type
>> coverity complaining that this may lead to undefined behavior. While I
>> agree that this would lead to NaN...
>
>
> Hmmm. In this case that is what is actually wanted. I
"sum" is a double so count is converted to 0.0, 0.0/0.0 == NaN, hence the
comment.
PG code usually avoids that, and I recall static analyze tools type
coverity complaining that this may lead to undefined behavior. While I
agree that this would lead to NaN...
Hmmm. In this case that is what i
On Tue, Dec 15, 2015 at 5:53 AM, Fabien COELHO wrote:
> I wrote:
>> Why would the likelyhood of an issue be small here?
>
> The time to update one stat (<< 100 cycles ?) to the time to do a
> transaction with the database (typically Y ms), so the likelyhood of two
> thread to update the very same
-Do not update pgbench_tellers and
-pgbench_branches.
-This will avoid update contention on these tables, but
-it makes the test case even less like TPC-B.
+Shorthand for -b simple-update@1.
I don't think it is a good idea to remove entirely the descrip
On Sat, Oct 3, 2015 at 3:11 PM, Fabien COELHO wrote:
>
>> Here is a v10, which is a rebase because of the "--progress-timestamp"
>> option addition.
>
>
> Here is a v11, which is a rebase after some recent changes committed to
> pgbench.
+The provided scriptname needs only to be a prefix
Here is a v10, which is a rebase because of the "--progress-timestamp" option
addition.
Here is a v11, which is a rebase after some recent changes committed to
pgbench.
--
Fabien.diff --git a/doc/src/sgml/ref/pgbench.sgml b/doc/src/sgml/ref/pgbench.sgml
index 0ac40f1..e3a90e5 100644
--- a/d
Here is a v10, which is a rebase because of the "--progress-timestamp"
option addition.
I do not see it attached.
Indeed. Here it is.
--
Fabien.diff --git a/doc/src/sgml/ref/pgbench.sgml b/doc/src/sgml/ref/pgbench.sgml
index 0ac40f1..e3a90e5 100644
--- a/doc/src/sgml/ref/pgbench.sgml
+++ b/
On Sat, Sep 26, 2015 at 3:27 AM, Fabien COELHO wrote:
> Here is a v10, which is a rebase because of the "--progress-timestamp"
> option addition.
I do not see it attached.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mai
Here is a v10, which is a rebase because of the "--progress-timestamp"
option addition.
It also include the fix for the tps without connection computation and
some minor code simplification, so it is redundant with this bug fix
patch:
https://commitfest.postgresql.org/7/378/
--
Fa
I've left out:
- removing -N/-S upward compatibility shorthands
but I will not cry if they are removed
I see no particular merit to breaking backward compatibility here.
I agree, but I would not fight for this. I think there is a good argument
*NOT* to add more if new builtin scripts ar
On Thu, Sep 3, 2015 at 3:26 AM, Fabien COELHO wrote:
> I've left out:
> - removing -N/-S upward compatibility shorthands
>but I will not cry if they are removed
I see no particular merit to breaking backward compatibility here.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The E
Right now builtins and user defined scripts are stored in different data
structures. I'd rather see them in the same.
They already are in the same array (sql_script) when pre-processed and
executed, there is no distinction beyond initialization.
The builtin_script array contains the equiva
On 2015-09-02 20:20:45 +0200, Fabien COELHO wrote:
> >>+static SQLScript sql_script[MAX_SCRIPTS];
> >>
> >>+static struct {
> >>+ char *name; /* very short name for -b ...*/
> >>+ char *desc; /* short description */
> >>+ char *script; /* actual pgbench script */
> >>+} builtin_script[]
>
Hello Anders,
This v9 :
- add "-b list" to show the list of builtins
- remove the explicit --per-scripts-stats option, which is instead
automatically set when several scripts are run or with per-command
latencies (-r)
- count scripts from 1 instead of 0 in the output
I've left out:
-
On Wed, Sep 2, 2015 at 5:55 PM, Andres Freund wrote:
> On 2015-09-02 14:36:51 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
>> On Wed, Sep 2, 2015 at 2:20 PM, Fabien COELHO wrote:
>> >> I'm wondering if percentages instead of weights would be a better
>> >> idea. That'd mean you'd be forced to be more careful when a
On 2015-09-02 14:36:51 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 2, 2015 at 2:20 PM, Fabien COELHO wrote:
> >> I'm wondering if percentages instead of weights would be a better
> >> idea. That'd mean you'd be forced to be more careful when adding another
> >> script (having to adjust the percentages
On Wed, Sep 2, 2015 at 2:20 PM, Fabien COELHO wrote:
>> I'm wondering if percentages instead of weights would be a better
>> idea. That'd mean you'd be forced to be more careful when adding another
>> script (having to adjust the percentages of other scripts) but arguably
>> that's a good thing?
>
Hello Andres,
Maybe add --builtin list to show them?
Yep, easy enough.
[...]
+Shorthand for -b simple-update@1.
+Shorthand for -b select-only@1.
I'm a bit inclined to remove these options.
Hm...
This is really backward compatibility, and people may find reference to
th
On 2015-07-30 18:03:56 +0200, Fabien COELHO wrote:
>
> >v6 is just a rebase after a bug fix by Andres Freund.
> >
> >Also a small question: The patch currently displays pgbench scripts
> >starting numbering at 0. Probably a little too geek... should start at 1?
>
> v7 is a rebase after another sm
v7 is a rebase after another small bug fix in pgbench.
v8 is a rebase after yet another small bug fix in pgbench.
--
Fabien.diff --git a/doc/src/sgml/ref/pgbench.sgml b/doc/src/sgml/ref/pgbench.sgml
index 2517a3a..99670d4 100644
--- a/doc/src/sgml/ref/pgbench.sgml
+++ b/doc/src/sgml/ref/pgben
v6 is just a rebase after a bug fix by Andres Freund.
Also a small question: The patch currently displays pgbench scripts
starting numbering at 0. Probably a little too geek... should start at
1?
v7 is a rebase after another small bug fix in pgbench.
--
Fabien.diff --git a/doc/src/sgml/ref
v6 is just a rebase after a bug fix by Andres Freund.
Also a small question: The patch currently displays pgbench scripts
starting numbering at 0. Probably a little too geek... should start at 1?
--
Fabien.diff --git a/doc/src/sgml/ref/pgbench.sgml b/doc/src/sgml/ref/pgbench.sgml
index 2517a3
Also, maybe per-command detailed stats should use the same common struct
to hold data as all other stats. I did not change it because it is
maintained in a different part of the code.
I played just once with the --report-latencies option and was astonished
that meta commands showed negative
I liked @ because it makes sense to read it as the word "at".
Yep, why not.
Prepending classic to the names does not look necessary. I would
suggest "tpcb-like", "simple-update" & "select-only", or even maybe any
prefix. If the bench scripts could be read from some pg directory
instead of
Fabien COELHO wrote:
>
> >>[...] and that a subsequent -w modifies the meaning of the
> >>script-specifiying argument already read. That strikes me as a very
> >>unintuitive interface.
> >
> >Ok, I understand this "afterward modification" objection.
> >
> >What if the -w would be required *before*
On Thu, Jul 23, 2015 at 12:15 PM, Fabien COELHO wrote:
>> Yes, I think that's a good idea. I don't know whether : is the right
>> separator; I kind of line @. But that's bikeshedding.
>
> Possible ASCII contenders should avoid shell and filename interaction, which
> exclude * ? ! & / < > [ ] . -
Yes, I think that's a good idea. I don't know whether : is the right
separator; I kind of line @. But that's bikeshedding.
Possible ASCII contenders should avoid shell and filename interaction,
which exclude * ? ! & / < > [ ] . - $ and so on: those that seem to
remain are @ , = : % # +. I
On Wed, Jul 22, 2015 at 1:54 PM, Josh Berkus wrote:
> 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 a
On 2015-07-22 10:54:14 -0700, Josh Berkus wrote:
> Making command-line options order-dependant breaks a lot of system call
> libraries in various languages, as well as being easy to mess up.
What?
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subs
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
Ok, I'll take that into consideration. Any other opinion out there? The
current v3 version is:
-w 3 -f script1.bench -w 1 -f script2.bench
With provision to generate error
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
> peo
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:-)
Al
Hello Robert,
Pgbench *currently* already accept multiple "-f ..." options, and this is a
good thing to test realistic loads which may intermix several kind of
transactions, say a lot of readonly and some update or insert, and very rare
deletes...
Hmm, I didn't realize that. The code looks a
On 07/21/2015 09:29 AM, Fabien COELHO wrote:
> 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?
Given that we want to define some per-workload options, the config file
would probably need to be YAML or JSON,
On Tue, Jul 21, 2015 at 12:29 PM, Fabien COELHO wrote:
> Pgbench *currently* already accept multiple "-f ..." options, and this is a
> good thing to test realistic loads which may intermix several kind of
> transactions, say a lot of readonly and some update or insert, and very rare
> deletes...
[...] and that a subsequent -w modifies the meaning of the
script-specifiying argument already read. That strikes me as a very
unintuitive interface.
Ok, I understand this "afterward modification" objection.
What if the -w would be required *before*, and supply a weight for (the
first/maybe
5~5~5~
That is a truly horrifying abuse of command-line arguments. -1 from
me, or minus more than one if I've got that many chits to burn.
Are you against the -w, or against saying that pgbench execute scripts,
whether internal or from files?
I'm against the idea that we accept multiple argu
On Tue, Jul 21, 2015 at 10:42 AM, Fabien COELHO wrote:
>>> sh> ./pgbench -T 3 -B -N -w 2 -S -w 7 --per-script-stats
>>
>> That is a truly horrifying abuse of command-line arguments. -1 from
>> me, or minus more than one if I've got that many chits to burn.
>
> Are you against the -w, or against
Hello Robert,
On Fri, Jul 17, 2015 at 9:50 AM, Fabien wrote:
sh> ./pgbench -T 3 -B -N -w 2 -S -w 7 --per-script-stats
That is a truly horrifying abuse of command-line arguments. -1 from
me, or minus more than one if I've got that many chits to burn.
Are you against the -w, or against s
On Fri, Jul 17, 2015 at 9:50 AM, Fabien wrote:
> sh> ./pgbench -T 3 -B -N -w 2 -S -w 7 --per-script-stats
That is a truly horrifying abuse of command-line arguments. -1 from
me, or minus more than one if I've got that many chits to burn.
I have been thinking that the way to do this is to push
Oops, as usual I forgot something...
This v2 removes old stats code that was put in comment and simplify the
logic when counting lag times, as they are now taken into account at the
end of the transaction instead of at the beginning.
This patch adds per-script statistics & other improvement
This patch adds per-script statistics & other improvements to pgbench
Rationale: Josh asked for the per-script stats:-)
Some restructuring is done so that all stats (-l --aggregate-interval
--progress --per-script-stats, latency & lag...) share the same structures
and functions to accumulate
89 matches
Mail list logo