On Wed, Jul 31, 2019 at 2:11 PM Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> > I agree with this. When I was at EnterpriseDB, while it wasn't audited, we
> > had to develop an actual TPC-B implementation because pgbench was too
> > different. pgbench itself isn't that useful as a benchmark tool, imo, but
> > if we have the ability to make it better (i.e. closer to an actual
> > benchmark kit), I think we should.
>
> [ shrug... ] TBH, the proposed patch does not look to me like actual
> benchmark kit; it looks like a toy. Nobody who was intent on making their
> benchmark numbers look good would do a significant amount of work in a
> slow, ad-hoc interpreted language.
According to TPC themselves, "In contrast to TPC-A, TPC-B is not an
OLTP benchmark. Rather, TPC-B can be looked at as a database stress
test..." [1]. Sounds like classic pgbench to me.
Not sure where that leaves this patch. What problem is it actually
trying to solve?
[1] http://www.tpc.org/tpcb/
--
Peter Geoghegan