I will address the comments here over this coming weekend.
I think that in addition to current "tpc-b like" test we could also have more modern "tpc-c like" and "tpc-h like" tests And why not any other "* -like" from the rest of TPC-*, YCSP, sysbench, ... :) though maybe not as part of pg_bench but as extensions ? --- Hannu On Wed, Aug 16, 2023 at 10:06 AM Fabien COELHO <coe...@cri.ensmp.fr> wrote: > > > Hello Nathan, > > >> I'm unclear about what variety of scripts that could be provided given the > >> tables made available with pgbench. ISTM that other scenari would involve > >> both an initialization and associated scripts, and any proposal would be > >> bared because it would open the door to anything. > > > > Why's that? > > Just a wild guess based on 19 years of occasional contributions to pg and > pgbench in particular:-) > > > I'm not aware of any project policy that prohibits such enhancements to > > pgbench. > > Attempts in extending pgbench often fall under "you can do it outside (eg > with a custom script) so there is no need to put that in pgbench as it > would add to the maintenance burden with a weak benefit proven by the fact > that it is not there already". > > > It might take some effort to gather consensus on a proposal like this, > > but IMHO that doesn't mean we shouldn't try. > > Done it in the past. Probably will do it again in the future:-) > > > If the prevailing wisdom is that we shouldn't add more built-in scripts > > because there is an existing way to provide custom ones, then it's not > > clear that we should proceed with $SUBJECT, anyway. > > I'm afraid there is that argument. I do not think that this policy is good > wrt $SUBJECT, ISTM that having an easy way to test something with a > PL/pgSQL function would help promote the language by advertising/showing > the potential performance benefit (or not, depending). Just one function > would be enough for that. > > -- > Fabien.
