> BTW, I saw this with 9.3.2's pgbench:
>
> 239300000 of 3800000000 tuples (-48%) done (elapsed 226.86 s, remaining -696.10 s).
>
> -48% does not seem to be quite correct to me...
Included is a proposed fix for this (also fixing weired "remaining"
part). If there's no objection, I will commit it.
Best regards,
--
Tatsuo Ishii
SRA OSS, Inc. Japan
English: http://www.sraoss.co.jp/index_en.php
Japanese: http://www.sraoss.co.jp
diff --git a/contrib/pgbench/pgbench.c b/contrib/pgbench/pgbench.c
index 2c96fae..28ab52f 100644
--- a/contrib/pgbench/pgbench.c
+++ b/contrib/pgbench/pgbench.c
@@ -1720,11 +1720,11 @@ init(bool is_no_vacuum) INSTR_TIME_SUBTRACT(diff, start); elapsed_sec =
INSTR_TIME_GET_DOUBLE(diff);
- remaining_sec = (scale * naccounts - j) * elapsed_sec / j;
+ remaining_sec = ((int64)scale * naccounts - j) * elapsed_sec / j; fprintf(stderr, INT64_FORMAT
"of " INT64_FORMAT " tuples (%d%%) done (elapsed %.2f s, remaining %.2f s).\n", j, (int64) naccounts
*scale,
- (int) (((int64) j * 100) / (naccounts * scale)),
+ (int) (((int64) j * 100) / (naccounts * (int64)scale)), elapsed_sec,
remaining_sec); } /* let's not call the timing for each row, but only each 100 rows */