Re: pgbench throttling latency limit - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Heikki Linnakangas
Subject Re: pgbench throttling latency limit
Date
Msg-id 54134D75.4010403@vmware.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: pgbench throttling latency limit  (Fabien COELHO <coelho@cri.ensmp.fr>)
Responses Re: pgbench throttling latency limit  (Fabien COELHO <coelho@cri.ensmp.fr>)
List pgsql-hackers
On 09/12/2014 08:59 PM, Fabien COELHO wrote:
>
>> The output would look something like this (modified from the manual's example
>> by hand, so the numbers don't add up):
>>
>> 0 199 2241 0 1175850568 995598 1020
>> 0 200 2465 0 1175850568 998079 1010
>> 0 201 skipped 1175850569 608 3011
>> 0 202 skipped 1175850569 608 2400
>> 0 203 skipped 1175850569 608 1000
>> 0 204 2513 0 1175850569 608 500
>> 0 205 2038 0 1175850569 2663 500
>
> My 0.02€: ISTM that the number of columns should stay the same whether it
> is skipped or not, so the "file_no" should be kept.

Oh, sorry, I totally agree. I left file_no out by mistake.

> Maybe to keep it a
> number would make sense (-1) or just a sign (-) which means "no value"
> with gnuplot for instance. Or "skipped".
>
> Basically I would be fine with that, but as I do not use the log file
> feature I'm not sure that my opinion should count.
>
> Note that there are also potential issues with the aggregate logging and
> the sampling stuff.

Yep.

- Heikki



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Kevin Grittner
Date:
Subject: Re: Stating the significance of Lehman & Yao in the nbtree README
Next
From: Abhijit Menon-Sen
Date:
Subject: Re: [REVIEW] Re: Compression of full-page-writes