On 21 June 2012 02:57, Heikki Linnakangas
<heikki.linnakangas@enterprisedb.com> wrote:
> On 20.06.2012 21:41, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
>>
>> On 20 June 2012 18:42, Robert Haas<robertmhaas@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> On Wed, Jun 20, 2012 at 3:48 AM, Simon Riggs<simon@2ndquadrant.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> I'm sure Jeff submitted this because of the need for a standard test,
>>>> rather than the wish to actually modify pgbench itself.
>>>>
>>>> Can I suggest that we include a list of standard scripts with pgbench
>>>> for this purpose? These can then be copied alongside the binary when
>>>> we do an install.
>>>
>>>
>>> I was thinking along similar lines myself. At the least, I think we
>>> can't continue to add a short option for every new test type.
>>> Instead, maybe we could have --test-type=WHATEVER, and perhaps that
>>> then reads whatever.sql from some compiled-in directory. That would
>>> allow us to sanely support a moderately large number of tests.
>
>
> We could call the --test-type option -f, and the "compiled-in directory"
> could be the current directory ;-).
;-)
Yeh, -f is good
We should read $PATH, but if not found, it should search the share dir
for a script of that name.
>> +1. As long as pgbench is considered to be the standard benchmarking
>> tool (and I think that it is a general problem that it is), we ought
>> to make an effort to give people more options.
>
>
> Yeah, this sounds like a good approach. A library of standard workload
> scripts seems very useful. I've been using custom scripts to benchmark WAL
> insertion scalability lately, that also seems like a kind of a thing to put
> in such a library. I don't know if we should ship the library of scripts in
> contrib, or just put them up on a web site, but something like that...
Mix of both, I guess. We just add in to contrib any new scripts that
prove useful
--
Simon Riggs http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services