Re: Unfortunate choice of short switch name in pgbench - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Heikki Linnakangas
Subject Re: Unfortunate choice of short switch name in pgbench
Date
Msg-id 530DAE24.7030409@vmware.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Unfortunate choice of short switch name in pgbench  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
List pgsql-hackers
On 02/25/2014 11:32 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Meh.  A progress-reporting feature has use when the tool is working
> towards completion of a clearly defined task.  In the case of pgbench,
> if you told it to run for -T 60 seconds rather than -T 10 seconds,
> that's probably because you don't trust a 10-second average to be
> sufficiently reproducible.  So I'm not real sure that reporting averages
> over shorter intervals is all that useful; especially not if it takes
> cycles out of pgbench, which itself is often a bottleneck.

It's not useful when doing rigorous benchmarking to publish results, but 
in quick testing of various hacks during development, getting 10-second 
averages is very useful. You quickly see how stable the short averages 
are, and you can just hit CTRL-C when you've seen enough, without having 
to decide the suitable test length before hand.

It's also useful to see how checkpoints or autovacuum affects the 
transaction rate.

That said, no objection to removing the -P shorthand.

- Heikki



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Sergey Burladyan
Date:
Subject: Re: [BUGS] BUG #9223: plperlu result memory leak
Next
From: Kouhei Kaigai
Date:
Subject: Re: Custom Scan APIs (Re: Custom Plan node)