(I just pushed the patch, didn't see your post until after that)
On 09/21/2016 01:07 PM, Kuntal Ghosh wrote:
> On Thus, July 7,2016 at 08:39 PM, Fabien COELHO <coelho@cri.ensmp.fr> wrote:
>> Also there is still the bug under -t which displays a 0 latency.
> Your patch clearly fixed the issue.
>
>> The attached patch still fixes that and make it consistent the other way
>> around, i.e. by using "=" for latency. I switched to use ":" for weight
>> which is an input parameter. I let ":" when there is a long sentence to
>> describe the figure displayed, more on aesthetic grounds.
> In the above context, I suggest few other changes.
>
> Present output-> progress: 1.0 s, 1221.0 tps, lat 0.816 ms stddev 0.272
> Suggestion-> progress: 1.0 s, 1221.0 tps, lat avg 0.816 ms stddev 0.272 ms
Yeah, perhaps.
> Present output->
> SQL script 1: so.sql
> - weight = 1 (targets 50.0% of total)
> - 10010 transactions (50.1% of total, tps = 100.101872)
> - latency average = 1.878 ms
> - latency stddev = 3.614 ms
> Suggestion->
> SQL script 1: so.sql
> - weight = 1 (targets 50.0% of total)
> - 10010 transactions (50.1% of total)
> - tps = 100.101872
> - latency average = 1.878 ms
> - latency stddev = 3.614 ms
I think it fits well on a single line.
> Apart from that, pgbench.sgml should be updated to reflect latency
> average in the output.
pgbench.sgml actually already had the "latency average = ..." version in
its example. Even before this patch, we printed it with a "=" if one of
options that caused per-transaction timings to be measured, like --rate,
was used, and as ":" otherwise.
- Heikki