* Tom Lane (t...@sss.pgh.pa.us) wrote: > Stephen Frost <sfr...@snowman.net> writes: > > * Fabien COELHO (coe...@cri.ensmp.fr) wrote: > >> Indeed, some kind of "if" is needed, for instance to implement > >> "tpc-b" correctly. > > > That's an interesting point.. Have you thought about ripping out the > > built-in TPC-B-like functionality of pgbench and making that into a > > script instead? > > It already is a script, it's just hardwired as a string constant in > pgbench.c rather than being a separate file. I think Fabien is > suggesting that it could be changed to more nearly approximate the > actual TPC-B spec, but IMO that would be a seriously bad idea because > it would invalidate all cross-version performance comparisons. We > decided years ago that the default script is what it is and we aren't > going to change it to try to match TPC-B more exactly.
If we could replicate what the hardwired script does in an external script, keeping that as the default, and then provide a 'Closer to TPC-B' script, then I'm all for that. If the existing "hardwired script" is really just a string constant, then we shouldn't need to worry about that invalidating prior runs. > >> The SQL syntax for CASE is on the very heavy side and would be quite > >> complicated to implement in pgbench, so I rejected that and selected > >> the simplest possible function for the job. > > > I'm not quite sure that I follow why you feel that CASE would be too > > difficult to implement here..? > > If you want simple, you could provide just a subset of CASE (ie, only > the CASE WHEN boolexpr variant). I think inventing some random new syntax > is a bad idea. Agreed. Thanks! Stephen
Description: Digital signature