On Fri, Sep 13, 2019 at 6:36 PM Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
>
> On 2019-Sep-13, Amit Kapila wrote:
>
> > I would like to take inputs from others as well for the display part
> > of this patch. After this patch, for a simple-update pgbench test,
> > the changed output will be as follows (note: partition method and
> > partitions):
>
> > pgbench.exe -c 4 -j 4 -T 10 -N postgres
> > starting vacuum...end.
> > transaction type: <builtin: simple update>
> > scaling factor: 1
> > partition method: hash
> > partitions: 3
> > query mode: simple
> > number of clients: 4
> > number of threads: 4
> > duration: 10 s
> > number of transactions actually processed: 14563
> > latency average = 2.749 ms
> > tps = 1454.899150 (including connections establishing)
> > tps = 1466.689412 (excluding connections establishing)
> >
> > What do others think about this? This will be the case when the user
> > has used --partitions option in pgbench, otherwise, it won't change.
>
> I wonder what's the intended usage of this output ... it seems to be
> getting a bit too long. Is this intended for machine processing? I
> would rather have more things per line in a more compact header.
> But then I'm not the kind of person who automates multiple pgbench runs.
> Maybe we can get some input from Tomas, who does -- how do you automate
> extracting data from collected pgbench output, or do you instead just
> redirect the output to a file whose path/name indicates the parameters
> that were used? (I do the latter.)
>
> I mean, if we changed it like this (and I'm not proposing to do it in
> this patch, this is only an example), would it bother anyone?
>
> $ pgbench -x -y -z ...
> starting vacuum...end.
> scaling factor: 1 partition method: hash partitions: 1
> transaction type: <builtin: simple update> query mode: simple
> number of clients: 4 number of threads: 4 duration: 10s
> number of transactions actually processed: 14563
> latency average = 2.749 ms
> tps = 1454.899150 (including connections establishing)
> tps = 1466.689412 (excluding connections establishing)
>
>
> If this output doesn't bother people, then I suggest that this patch
> should put the partition information in the line together with scaling
> factor.
>
IIUC, there are two things here (a) you seem to be fine displaying
'partitions' and 'partition method' information, (b) you would prefer
to put it along with 'scaling factor' line.
I personally prefer each parameter to be displayed in a separate line,
but I am fine if more people would like to see the 'multiple
parameters information in a single line'. I think it is better to
that (point (b)) as a separate patch even if we agree on changing the
display format.
--
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com