Jan Wieck wrote:
You mean as a second, optional argument? Good idea.
I think it should only be one argument, with the units being part of the
variable value, if any.
us = microseconds
ms = milliseconds
s = seconds (default)
\sleep {value|:variable} [us|ms|s]
--
Peter
Peter Eisentraut [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Jan Wieck wrote:
You mean as a second, optional argument? Good idea.
I think it should only be one argument, with the units being part of the
variable value, if any.
No, because that makes it hard to do things like sleep for a small
random number
On 7/7/2007 11:40 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
Peter Eisentraut [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Jan Wieck wrote:
You mean as a second, optional argument? Good idea.
I think it should only be one argument, with the units being part of the
variable value, if any.
No, because that makes it hard to do
On Thu, 5 Jul 2007, Jan Wieck wrote:
Original pgbench reported 39, 37 and 33 TPS. Having my patch applied it
reported 40, 38 and 33 TPS. Inserting a \usleep 1 after the update to
accounts of a default equivalent script changed those numbers to 40, 37 and
33. I interpret that as does not
Am Donnerstag, 5. Juli 2007 21:12 schrieb Jan Wieck:
To test some changes in Slony I needed a
\usleep [microseconds|:variable]
in pgbench's scripting language to be able to have hundreds of
concurrent running transactions without totally swamping the system. I
was wondering if anyone
On 7/6/2007 10:44 AM, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
Am Donnerstag, 5. Juli 2007 21:12 schrieb Jan Wieck:
To test some changes in Slony I needed a
\usleep [microseconds|:variable]
in pgbench's scripting language to be able to have hundreds of
concurrent running transactions without totally
Jan Wieck wrote:
On 7/6/2007 10:44 AM, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
Am Donnerstag, 5. Juli 2007 21:12 schrieb Jan Wieck:
To test some changes in Slony I needed a
\usleep [microseconds|:variable]
in pgbench's scripting language to be able to have hundreds of
concurrent running transactions
On 7/6/2007 1:32 PM, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
Jan Wieck wrote:
On 7/6/2007 10:44 AM, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
Am Donnerstag, 5. Juli 2007 21:12 schrieb Jan Wieck:
To test some changes in Slony I needed a
\usleep [microseconds|:variable]
in pgbench's scripting language to be able to
Heikki Linnakangas [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Jan Wieck wrote:
You mean as a second, optional argument? Good idea.
us = microseconds
ms = milliseconds
s = seconds (default)
\sleep {value|:variable} [us|ms|s]
Is that okay with everyone?
I won't object, but is it really worth the
To test some changes in Slony I needed a
\usleep [microseconds|:variable]
in pgbench's scripting language to be able to have hundreds of
concurrent running transactions without totally swamping the system. I
was wondering if anyone would object to permanently adding this to the
pgbench
Jan Wieck [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
To test some changes in Slony I needed a
\usleep [microseconds|:variable]
in pgbench's scripting language to be able to have hundreds of
concurrent running transactions without totally swamping the system. I
was wondering if anyone would object to
On 7/5/2007 3:34 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
Jan Wieck [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
To test some changes in Slony I needed a
\usleep [microseconds|:variable]
in pgbench's scripting language to be able to have hundreds of
concurrent running transactions without totally swamping the system. I
was
Jan Wieck [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I think I've coded it in a way that if one doesn't use the \usleep
command at all, it will never even call gettimeofday() and use a NULL
timeout in select() as it used to.
Did you check that the observed performance for non-usleep-using scripts
didn't
Tom Lane wrote:
Jan Wieck [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I think I've coded it in a way that if one doesn't use the \usleep
command at all, it will never even call gettimeofday() and use a NULL
timeout in select() as it used to.
Did you check that the observed performance for
Alvaro Herrera [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Tom Lane wrote:
Did you check that the observed performance for non-usleep-using scripts
didn't change? If this extra overhead causes a reduction in reported
TPS rates it would make it hard to compare older and newer tests.
I keep wondering, why is
On 7/5/2007 5:30 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
Jan Wieck [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I think I've coded it in a way that if one doesn't use the \usleep
command at all, it will never even call gettimeofday() and use a NULL
timeout in select() as it used to.
Did you check that the observed performance for
16 matches
Mail list logo
