Re: [HACKERS] pgbench: Skipping the creating primary keys afterinitialization

Hello,

> I think we can use it like --custom-initialize="create_table, vacuum"
> which is similar to what we specify a connection option to psql for
> example.

Even if it is allowed, do not advertise it. Or use space as a separator 
and not comma. ISTM that with psql connections space is the higher level 
separator, not an optional thing, and comma is used for lower level 
splitting: "host=foo port=5432,5433 ..."

> But it will be unnecessary if we have the one letter version.

Sure.

>> I'm also wondering whether using a list is a good option, because it implies
>> a large parse function, list management and so on. With the one letter
>> version, it could be just a string to be scanned char by char for
>> operations.
>
> I basically agree with the one letter version. But I'm concerned that
> it'll confuse users if we have more initialization steps for the
> pgbench initialization. If we add more various initialization steps it
> makes pgbench command hard to read and the users might have to
> remember these options.

I think that if we get to the point where so many initialization steps 
that people get confused, then adding long names will not be an issue:-)

In the mean time it only needs 5 values.

>> Maybe there could be short-hands for usual setups, eg "default" for "tdpv"
>> or maybe "ct,ld,pk,va", "full" for "tdpfv" or maybe "ct,ld,pk,fk,va"...
>
> If --custom-initialize option requires for i option to be set,
> "pgbench -i" means the initialization with full steps and "pgbench -i
> --custom-initialize=..." means the initialization with custom
> operation steps.

Sure. It does not preclude the default to have a name.

>> Remove the "no-primary-keys" from the long option array as it has
>> disappeared. You might consider make "custom-initialize" take the 'I' short
>> option.
>>
>> Ranting unrelated to this patch: the automatic aid type switching based on
>> scale is a bad idea (tm), because when trying to benchmark it means that
>> changing the scale also changes the schema, and you really do not need that.
>> ISTM that it should always use INT8.
>
> Hmm, I think it's a valid point. Should we allow users to specify like
> the above thing in the custom initialization feature as well?

I would be in favor of having an option to do a tpc-b conforming schema 
which would include that, but which would also change the default balance 
type which is not large enough per spec. Maybe it could be "T".

-- 
Fabien.