I will address the comments here over this coming weekend.
I think that in addition to current "tpc-b like" test we could also
have more modern "tpc-c like" and "tpc-h like" tests
And why not any other "* -like" from the rest of TPC-*, YCSP, sysbench, ... :)
though maybe not as part of pg_bench but as extensions ?
---
Hannu
On Wed, Aug 16, 2023 at 10:06 AM Fabien COELHO <coelho@cri.ensmp.fr> wrote:
>
>
> Hello Nathan,
>
> >> I'm unclear about what variety of scripts that could be provided given the
> >> tables made available with pgbench. ISTM that other scenari would involve
> >> both an initialization and associated scripts, and any proposal would be
> >> bared because it would open the door to anything.
> >
> > Why's that?
>
> Just a wild guess based on 19 years of occasional contributions to pg and
> pgbench in particular:-)
>
> > I'm not aware of any project policy that prohibits such enhancements to
> > pgbench.
>
> Attempts in extending pgbench often fall under "you can do it outside (eg
> with a custom script) so there is no need to put that in pgbench as it
> would add to the maintenance burden with a weak benefit proven by the fact
> that it is not there already".
>
> > It might take some effort to gather consensus on a proposal like this,
> > but IMHO that doesn't mean we shouldn't try.
>
> Done it in the past. Probably will do it again in the future:-)
>
> > If the prevailing wisdom is that we shouldn't add more built-in scripts
> > because there is an existing way to provide custom ones, then it's not
> > clear that we should proceed with $SUBJECT, anyway.
>
> I'm afraid there is that argument. I do not think that this policy is good
> wrt $SUBJECT, ISTM that having an easy way to test something with a
> PL/pgSQL function would help promote the language by advertising/showing
> the potential performance benefit (or not, depending). Just one function
> would be enough for that.
>
> --
> Fabien.
