On Wed, Jul 22, 2015 at 1:54 PM, Josh Berkus <josh@agliodbs.com> 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 as being easy to mess up.
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.
As Fabien mentions further downthread, it would be nice to set weights
for the built-ins. I'd actually like to introduce a new pgbench
option that selects a builtin script by name, so that we can have more
than three of them without running out of option names (or going
insane). So suppose we introduce pgbench -b BUILTIN_NAME, where
BUILTIN_NAME is initially one of these:
classic
classic-simple-update
classic-select-only
Then you can do pgbench -b classic@1 -b classic-select-only@9 or
similar to get 10% write, 90% read.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
