On Wed, Jul 22, 2015 at 1:54 PM, Josh Berkus <j...@agliodbs.com> wrote: > If so, I would vote for: > > -f script1.bench:3 -f script2.bench:1 > > over: > > -f script1.bench -w 3 -f script2.bench -w 1 > > Making command-line options order-dependant breaks a lot of system call > libraries in various languages, as well as being easy to mess up.
Yes, I think that's a good idea. I don't know whether : is the right separator; I kind of line @. But that's bikeshedding. As Fabien mentions further downthread, it would be nice to set weights for the built-ins. I'd actually like to introduce a new pgbench option that selects a builtin script by name, so that we can have more than three of them without running out of option names (or going insane). So suppose we introduce pgbench -b BUILTIN_NAME, where BUILTIN_NAME is initially one of these: classic classic-simple-update classic-select-only Then you can do pgbench -b classic@1 -b classic-select-only@9 or similar to get 10% write, 90% read. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
