On 1/29/18, 23:52, "Fabien COELHO" <coelho@cri.ensmp.fr> wrote:
Hello Doug,
Hi Fabien,
> With patch and ‘-I dtgvpf’ options:
> pgrun pgbench -i -s 2000 -F 90 -q -I dtgvpf
> dropping old tables...
> creating tables...
> generating data...
> …
> 200000000 of 200000000 tuples (100%) done (elapsed 168.76 s, remaining 0.00 s)
> vacuuming...
> creating primary keys...
> creating foreign keys...
> total time: 353.52 s (drop 1.67 s, tables 0.11 s, insert 168.82 s, commit 0.46 s, primary 92.32 s, foreign 40.11
s,vacuum 50.03 s)
> done.
I'm in favor of such a feature.
However, I think that the durations should be shown in the order in which
the initialization is performed.
Agreed.
I would suggest to:
- move the time measure in the initialization loop, instead of doing it
in each function, so that it is done just in one place.
I will do this.
- maybe store the actions in some array/list data structure, eg:
"{ char * phase; double duration; }", so that they can be kept
in order and eventually repeated.
In order to extract the commit time, I'd say that explicit begin and
commit should be separate instructions triggerred by '(' and ')'.
Also, I'm not sure of the one line display, maybe it could be done while
The one line display was for ease of parsing it from the output flow.
it is in progress, i.e. something like:
dropping table...
table drop: 1.67 s
creating table...
table creation: 0.11 s
...
In which case there is no need for storing the actions and their
durations, only the running total is needed.
Doing the "in progress" way suffers from everything before 'generating data' possibly scrolling off the screen/window.
For me, it is much handier to look at one set of duration times all reported together after all of the initialize
phasesare done.
--
Fabien.
Thanks!
doug
