Re: [HACKERS] pgbench more operators & functions

Hi 2017-10-20 18:36 GMT+02:00 Fabien COELHO : > > Here is a v13. No code changes, but TAP tests added to maintain pgbench coverage to green. >>> > Here is a v14, which is just a rebase after the documentation xml-ization. > all tests passed no problems with doc

Re: [HACKERS] pgbench more operators & functions

Here is a v13. No code changes, but TAP tests added to maintain pgbench coverage to green. Here is a v14, which is just a rebase after the documentation xml-ization. -- Fabien.diff --git a/doc/src/sgml/ref/pgbench.sgml b/doc/src/sgml/ref/pgbench.sgml index e509e6c..1f55967 100644 ---

Re: [HACKERS] pgbench more operators & functions

Here is a v13. No code changes, but TAP tests added to maintain pgbench coverage to green. Summary of patch contents: [...] 1. there are no any problem with compilation, patching 2. all tests passed 3. doc is ok I'll mark this patch as ready for commiter Ok. Thanks for the reviews. --

Re: [HACKERS] pgbench more operators & functions

Hi 2017-09-09 11:02 GMT+02:00 Fabien COELHO : > > Hello Pavel, > > Here is a v13. No code changes, but TAP tests added to maintain pgbench > coverage to green. > > > Summary of patch contents: > > This patch extends pgbench expressions syntax while keeping compatibility >

Re: [HACKERS] pgbench more operators & functions

Hello Pavel, Here is a v13. No code changes, but TAP tests added to maintain pgbench coverage to green. Summary of patch contents: This patch extends pgbench expressions syntax while keeping compatibility with SQL expressions. It adds support for NULL and BOOLEAN, as well as assorted

Re: [HACKERS] pgbench more operators & functions

Here is a rebase. Argh, sorry, missing attachement... Here it is really. -- Fabien.diff --git a/doc/src/sgml/ref/pgbench.sgml b/doc/src/sgml/ref/pgbench.sgml index 03e1212..520daae 100644 --- a/doc/src/sgml/ref/pgbench.sgml +++ b/doc/src/sgml/ref/pgbench.sgml @@ -825,14 +825,31 @@ pgbench

Re: [HACKERS] pgbench more operators & functions

Hello Peter, On 5/24/17 03:14, Fabien COELHO wrote: I've improved it in attached v11: - add a link to the CASE full documentation - add an example expression with CASE ... This patch needs (at least) a rebase for the upcoming commit fest. Here is a rebase. It still passes my tests.

Re: [HACKERS] pgbench more operators & functions

On 5/24/17 03:14, Fabien COELHO wrote: > I've improved it in attached v11: > - add a link to the CASE full documentation > - add an example expression with CASE ... This patch needs (at least) a rebase for the upcoming commit fest. -- Peter Eisentraut

Re: [HACKERS] pgbench more operators & functions

The patch looks ok, Ok. but the main issue is missing regress tests. Yes, I agree. I know so it is another patch. But it should be placed differently 1. first patch - initial infrastructure for pgbench regress tests 2. this patch + related regress tests Yep. I have no control about

Re: [HACKERS] pgbench more operators & functions

2017-05-30 7:19 GMT+02:00 Fabien COELHO : > > [doc about CASE...] >>> >> >> I've improved it in attached v11: >> - add a link to the CASE full documentation >> - add an example expression with CASE ... >> > > Do you think I should improve the doc further? I am sorry, I

Re: [HACKERS] pgbench more operators & functions

[doc about CASE...] I've improved it in attached v11: - add a link to the CASE full documentation - add an example expression with CASE ... Do you think I should improve the doc further? -- Fabien. -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to

Re: [HACKERS] pgbench more operators & functions

Hello Pavel, I am watching this patch - it looks so there are not problems. Great. I found only issue in documentation - new CASE expression is not documented. Hmmm. Actually there was a rather very discreet one in v10: + SQL CASE generic conditional expressions I've improved it

Re: [HACKERS] pgbench more operators & functions

Hi I am watching this patch - it looks so there are not problems. I found only issue in documentation - new CASE expression is not documented. Regards Pavel

Re: [HACKERS] pgbench more operators & functions

Here is a v9 which includes some more cleanup, hopefully in the expected direction which is to make pgbench expressions behave as SQL expressions, and I hope taking into account all other feedback as well. CONTEXT Pgbench has been given an expression parser (878fdcb8) which allows to use

Re: [HACKERS] pgbench more operators & functions

Hi, On 2017-03-16 12:21:31 -0400, David Steele wrote: > Any reviewers want to have a look? Unfortunately there wasn't much of that. I think that this patch atm doesn't have sufficient design agreement to be considered for v10. As the current CF has formally ended, I think we'll have to punt

Re: [HACKERS] pgbench more operators & functions

Hello David, This patch applies cleanly and compiles at cccbdde with some whitespace issues. $ patch -p1 < ../other/pgbench-more-ops-funcs-9.patch (Stripping trailing CRs from patch.) My guess is that your mailer changed the eol-style of the file when saving it: sh> sha1sum

Re: [HACKERS] pgbench more operators & functions

On 2/4/17 4:51 AM, Fabien COELHO wrote: > > Hello, > >> For my 2c, at least, while I'm definitely interested in this, it's not >> nearly high enough on my plate with everything else going on to get any >> attention in the next few weeks, at least. >> >> I do think that, perhaps, this patch may

Re: [HACKERS] pgbench more operators & functions

Hello, For my 2c, at least, while I'm definitely interested in this, it's not nearly high enough on my plate with everything else going on to get any attention in the next few weeks, at least. I do think that, perhaps, this patch may deserve a bit of a break, to allow people to come back to

Re: [HACKERS] pgbench more operators & functions

Hello Stephen, For my 2c, at least, while I'm definitely interested in this, it's not nearly high enough on my plate with everything else going on to get any attention in the next few weeks, at least. Fine with me. I do think that, perhaps, this patch may deserve a bit of a break, to allow

Re: [HACKERS] pgbench more operators & functions

Fabien, * Fabien COELHO (coe...@cri.ensmp.fr) wrote: > I think that there is a misunderstanding, most of which being my fault. No worries, it happens. :) > I have really tried to do everything that was required from > committers, including revising the patch to match all previous > feedback.

Re: [HACKERS] pgbench more operators & functions

Hello Tom, I concur that this is expanding pgbench's expression language well beyond what anybody has shown a need for. As for the motivation, I'm assuming that pgbench should provide features necessary to implement benchmarks, so I'm adding operators that appear in standard benchmark

Re: [HACKERS] pgbench more operators & functions

Bonjour Michaël, Hello Robert, Let's mark this Returned with Feedback and move on. We've only got a week left in the CommitFest anyhow and there are lots of other things that still need work (and which actually have been revised to match previous feedback). Done as such, let's move on.

Re: [HACKERS] pgbench more operators & functions

Hello Tom, I concur that this is expanding pgbench's expression language well beyond what anybody has shown a need for. As for the motivation, I'm assuming that pgbench should provide features

Re: [HACKERS] pgbench more operators & functions

As it stands right now you haven't provided enough context for this patch and only the social difficulty of actually marking a patch rejected has prevented its demise in its current form - because while it has interesting ideas its added maintenance burden for -core without any in-core usage.

Re: [HACKERS] pgbench more operators & functions

I agree, and I think that's pretty much what we all said back in October, and the patch hasn't been revised since then to match those comments. Hmmm. It really had been revised, although I forgot to remove the "if" doc but I had remove the if function. -- Fabien. -- Sent via

Re: [HACKERS] pgbench more operators & functions

I'm spending time to try to make something useful of pgbench, which require a bunch of patches that work together to improve it for new use case, including not being limited to the current set of operators. This decision is both illogical and arbitrary. I disagree. I think his decision

Re: [HACKERS] pgbench more operators & functions

On Wed, Jan 25, 2017 at 6:38 AM, Robert Haas wrote: > Let's mark this Returned with Feedback and move on. We've only got a > week left in the CommitFest anyhow and there are lots of other things > that still need work (and which actually have been revised to match >

Re: [HACKERS] pgbench more operators & functions

On Tue, Jan 24, 2017 at 12:58 PM, Tom Lane wrote: > I'd be okay with the parts of this that duplicate existing backend syntax > and semantics, but I don't especially want to invent further than that. I agree, and I think that's pretty much what we all said back in October,

Re: [HACKERS] pgbench more operators & functions

"David G. Johnston" writes: > Maybe consider writing a full patch series that culminates with this > additional builtin option being added as the final patch - breaking out > this (and probably other) "requirements" patches separately to aid in > review. The

Re: [HACKERS] pgbench more operators & functions

On Wed, Oct 5, 2016 at 2:03 AM, Fabien COELHO wrote: > > I've got no objection to a more-nearly-TPC-B script as an option. >> > > Good, because adding a "per-spec" tpc-b as an additional builtin option is > one of my intentions, once pgbench is capable of it. ​Trying to

Re: [HACKERS] pgbench more operators & functions

Robert Haas writes: >> On Fri, Dec 2, 2016 at 1:28 AM, Fabien COELHO wrote: >>> This decision is both illogical and arbitrary. >> I disagree. I think his decision was probably based on this email from me: > (argh, sent too soon) >

Re: [HACKERS] pgbench more operators & functions

On Tue, Jan 24, 2017 at 11:32 AM, Robert Haas wrote: > On Fri, Dec 2, 2016 at 1:28 AM, Fabien COELHO wrote: >>> Closed in 2016-11 commitfest with "returned with feedback" status. >>> Please feel free to update the status once you submit the updated

Re: [HACKERS] pgbench more operators & functions

On Fri, Dec 2, 2016 at 1:28 AM, Fabien COELHO wrote: >> Closed in 2016-11 commitfest with "returned with feedback" status. >> Please feel free to update the status once you submit the updated patch. > > Given the thread discussions, I do not understand why this "ready for >

Re: [HACKERS] pgbench more operators & functions

Rebased version after small expression scanner change. -- Fabien.diff --git a/doc/src/sgml/ref/pgbench.sgml b/doc/src/sgml/ref/pgbench.sgml index 1eee8dc..8bb9c75 100644 --- a/doc/src/sgml/ref/pgbench.sgml +++ b/doc/src/sgml/ref/pgbench.sgml @@ -828,11 +828,11 @@ pgbench options dbname

Re: [HACKERS] pgbench more operators & functions

Hello, Sorry for the changing the status of the patch against to the current status. While going through the recent mails, I thought that there is some disagreement from committer. If so, I'm willing to explain again why these operators are useful for writing some benchmarks, for instance,

Re: [HACKERS] pgbench more operators & functions

On Fri, Dec 2, 2016 at 5:28 PM, Fabien COELHO wrote: > > Hello Haribabu, > > Alas, performance testing is quite sensitive to many details:-( >>> >> > The current status of the patch and recent mail thread discussion doesn't >> represent the same. >> > > The same what? > >

Re: [HACKERS] pgbench more operators & functions

Hello Haribabu, Alas, performance testing is quite sensitive to many details:-( The current status of the patch and recent mail thread discussion doesn't represent the same. The same what? The discussion was about a particular test in a particular setting for a particular load, the fact

Re: [HACKERS] pgbench more operators & functions

On Sat, Oct 8, 2016 at 11:27 PM, Fabien COELHO wrote: > > Hello Amit. > > Also, given the heavy UPDATE nature of the pgbench test, a non 100% default >>> fill factor on some tables would make sense. >>> >> >> FWIW, sometime back I have seen that with fill factor 80, at

Re: [HACKERS] pgbench more operators & functions

Hello Amit. Also, given the heavy UPDATE nature of the pgbench test, a non 100% default fill factor on some tables would make sense. FWIW, sometime back I have seen that with fill factor 80, at somewhat moderate client counts (32) on 192 - Hyper Threaded m/c, the performance is 20~30%

Re: [HACKERS] pgbench more operators & functions

On Sat, Oct 8, 2016 at 12:58 PM, Fabien COELHO wrote: > > Hello Tom, > > I comment here on the first part of your remarks. I've answered the second > part in another mail. > >>> (1) The required schema is slightly different : currently the type used >>> for holding balances

Re: [HACKERS] pgbench more operators & functions

Hello Tom, I comment here on the first part of your remarks. I've answered the second part in another mail. (1) The required schema is slightly different : currently the type used for holding balances is not wide enough per the TCP-B standard, this mean maybe having an option to do "pgbench

Re: [HACKERS] pgbench more operators & functions

Hello Tom, (2) The benchmark specification requires the client application to get hold of query results, which are currently discarded by pgbench, so pgbench does not really comply. I have submitted a patch to do that, see: I find this completely bogus. The data is delivered to the client,

Re: [HACKERS] pgbench more operators & functions

Fabien COELHO writes: > [ re TPC-B ] > (1) The required schema is slightly different : currently the type used > for holding balances is not wide enough per the TCP-B standard, this mean > maybe having an option to do "pgbench -i --standard-tpcb" which would > generate

Re: [HACKERS] pgbench more operators & functions

Hello Stephen, * Fabien COELHO (coe...@cri.ensmp.fr) wrote: I've got no objection to a more-nearly-TPC-B script as an option. Good, because adding a "per-spec" tpc-b as an additional builtin option is one of my intentions, once pgbench is capable of it. I believe it would be really

Re: [HACKERS] pgbench more operators & functions

Fabien, * Fabien COELHO (coe...@cri.ensmp.fr) wrote: > >I've got no objection to a more-nearly-TPC-B script as an option. > > Good, because adding a "per-spec" tpc-b as an additional builtin > option is one of my intentions, once pgbench is capable of it. I believe it would be really helpful to

Re: [HACKERS] pgbench more operators & functions

I've got no objection to a more-nearly-TPC-B script as an option. Good, because adding a "per-spec" tpc-b as an additional builtin option is one of my intentions, once pgbench is capable of it. But why do you feel the need to pull the default script out into a separate file? Seems to me

Re: [HACKERS] pgbench more operators & functions

Hello Robert, I think it's pretty clear that this patch is not Ready for Committer, As a reviewer, I do not know when to decide to put something as "ready". My opinion is that it is a matter of the reviewer to decide. Whether some consensus is actually reached, or whether a committer is

Re: [HACKERS] pgbench more operators & functions

Hello Stephen, I'm pretty sure we should hold off on adding 'xor' [...] So I removed "xor" in the attached version. [...] I certainly understand how the if() function could be useful Indeed, some kind of "if" is needed, for instance to implement "tpc-b" correctly. That's an interesting

Re: [HACKERS] pgbench more operators & functions

On Sun, Oct 2, 2016 at 9:41 AM, Michael Paquier wrote: > On Sat, Oct 1, 2016 at 11:35 PM, Fabien COELHO wrote: >> Attached version changes: >> - removes C operators not present in psql >> - document operators one per line > > Moved to next CF

Re: [HACKERS] pgbench more operators & functions

* Tom Lane (t...@sss.pgh.pa.us) wrote: > Stephen Frost writes: > > * Tom Lane (t...@sss.pgh.pa.us) wrote: > >> 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

Re: [HACKERS] pgbench more operators & functions

Stephen Frost writes: > * Tom Lane (t...@sss.pgh.pa.us) wrote: >> 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 >>

Re: [HACKERS] pgbench more operators & functions

* Tom Lane (t...@sss.pgh.pa.us) wrote: > Stephen Frost 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

Re: [HACKERS] pgbench more operators & functions

Stephen Frost writes: > * Fabien COELHO (coe...@cri.ensmp.fr) wrote: >> In the attached patched I only included pg operators, plus "xor" >> which I feel is missing and does not seem to harm. > I'm pretty sure we should hold off on adding 'xor' until it's actually > in PG

Re: [HACKERS] pgbench more operators & functions

Fabien, * Fabien COELHO (coe...@cri.ensmp.fr) wrote: > >>bitwise: <<, >>, &, |, ^/#, ~ > >>comparisons: =/==, <>/!=, <, <=, >, >= > >>logical: and/&&, or/||, xor/^^, not, ! > > > >I'm not sure that we want to introduce operators '&&', '||' as logical > >'and' and 'or' when those have specific

Re: [HACKERS] pgbench more operators & functions

On Sat, Oct 1, 2016 at 11:35 PM, Fabien COELHO wrote: > Attached version changes: > - removes C operators not present in psql > - document operators one per line Moved to next CF with same status: "Ready for committer". -- Michael -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list

Re: [HACKERS] pgbench more operators & functions

Hello Stephen, bitwise: <<, >>, &, |, ^/#, ~ comparisons: =/==, <>/!=, <, <=, >, >= logical: and/&&, or/||, xor/^^, not, ! I'm not sure that we want to introduce operators '&&', '||' as logical 'and' and 'or' when those have specific meaning in PG which is different (array overlaps and

Re: [HACKERS] pgbench more operators & functions

Fabien, Jeevan, * Jeevan Ladhe (jeevan.la...@enterprisedb.com) wrote: > On Sat, Jul 9, 2016 at 12:14 PM, Fabien COELHO wrote: > >> Here is a simple patch which adds a bunch of operators (bitwise: & | ^ ~, > >> comparisons: =/== <>/!= < <= > >=, logical: and/&& or/|| xor/^^

Re: [HACKERS] pgbench more operators & functions

The following review has been posted through the commitfest application: make installcheck-world: tested, passed Implements feature: tested, passed Spec compliant: not tested Documentation:tested, passed The patch looks good to me now. Passing this to committer. The

Re: [HACKERS] pgbench more operators & functions

Hello Jeevan. 1. About documentation, I think it will be good idea to arrange the operators table with the precedence and add a line at top: "In decreasing order of precedence". Done, see attached. 2. You may want to remove the comment: + /* should it do a lazy evaluation of the

Re: [HACKERS] pgbench more operators & functions

Hi, The patch has correct precedence now. Further minor comments: 1. About documentation, I think it will be good idea to arrange the operators table with the precedence and add a line at top: "In decreasing order of precedence". 2. You may want to remove the comment: + /* should it

Re: [HACKERS] pgbench more operators & functions

Hello Jeevan, I did the review of your patch and here are my views on your patch. Thanks for this detailed review and debugging! Documentation: [...] it be a good idea to have a table of operators similar to that of functions. We need not have several columns here like description,

Re: [HACKERS] pgbench more operators & functions

On Sat, Jul 9, 2016 at 12:14 PM, Fabien COELHO wrote: > >> Here is a simple patch which adds a bunch of operators (bitwise: & | ^ ~, >> comparisons: =/== <>/!= < <= > >=, logical: and/&& or/|| xor/^^ not/!) and >> functions (exp ln if) to pgbench. I've tried to be pg's SQL

Re: [HACKERS] pgbench more operators & functions

Here is a simple patch which adds a bunch of operators (bitwise: & | ^ ~, comparisons: =/== <>/!= < <= > >=, logical: and/&& or/|| xor/^^ not/!) and functions (exp ln if) to pgbench. I've tried to be pg's SQL compatible where appropriate. Also attached is a simple test script. Here is a

Re: [HACKERS] pgbench more operators & functions

Please note that the checkpointer patch has two open items that perhaps you can help with --- see https://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/Open_Items Indeed, I just looked at the commitfest, and I did not notice the other threads. I do not have an OSX available, but I'll have a look at the other

Re: [HACKERS] pgbench more operators & functions

Fabien COELHO wrote: > I try to review all patches in my (small) area of (limited) expertise, which > is currently pgbench & some part of the checkpointer. I did also minor bug > fixes (eg isbn). AFAICS none of the patches lacking a reviewer in 9.6 CF > fall in these area. > > Also note that

Re: [HACKERS] pgbench more operators & functions

Hello Andres, I don't see much point in asking people to postpone. I do think however it can make sense to respond with something like: Fabien, you've been submitting a lot of patches over the last year. Thanks for the that! To keep up with the amount of incoming work the prject relies on

Re: [HACKERS] pgbench more operators & functions

On Mon, Apr 4, 2016 at 11:51 AM, Andres Freund wrote: > > On 2016-04-04 06:18:47 +0100, Simon Riggs wrote: > > I'd say "why not wait?". Minor, non-urgent patches will definitely go > > nowhere for a long time, so it gains nobody to submit now. > > > > Submitting patches during

Re: [HACKERS] pgbench more operators & functions

On 2016-04-04 06:18:47 +0100, Simon Riggs wrote: > I'd say "why not wait?". Minor, non-urgent patches will definitely go > nowhere for a long time, so it gains nobody to submit now. > > Submitting patches during freeze has been discouraged for many years, so > asking a long term contributor to

Re: [HACKERS] pgbench more operators & functions

On Sun, Apr 3, 2016 at 10:18 PM, Simon Riggs wrote: > On 4 April 2016 at 01:14, Michael Paquier > wrote: > > >> I'd say why not. >> > > I'd say "why not wait?". Minor, non-urgent patches will definitely go > nowhere for a long time, so it gains

Re: [HACKERS] pgbench more operators & functions

On 4 April 2016 at 01:14, Michael Paquier wrote: > I'd say why not. > I'd say "why not wait?". Minor, non-urgent patches will definitely go nowhere for a long time, so it gains nobody to submit now. Submitting patches during freeze has been discouraged for many

Re: [HACKERS] pgbench more operators & functions

On Mon, Apr 4, 2016 at 1:15 AM, Fabien COELHO wrote: >>> Here is a simple patch... >> >> The patch deadline has passed and we are in the last CF of 9.6, as I'm >> sure you know. > > Yes I know, I'm ok with that, I was just putting stuff in the queue for > later, I was not

Re: [HACKERS] pgbench more operators & functions

Hello Simon, Here is a simple patch... The patch deadline has passed and we are in the last CF of 9.6, as I'm sure you know. Yes I know, I'm ok with that, I was just putting stuff in the queue for later, I was not asking for the patch to be considered right now. Another minor patch on

Re: [HACKERS] pgbench more operators & functions

On 3 April 2016 at 06:54, Fabien COELHO wrote: > Here is a simple patch... The patch deadline has passed and we are in the last CF of 9.6, as I'm sure you know. Another minor patch on pgbench probably isn't going to help stabilise this release, so these changes won't be

[HACKERS] pgbench more operators & functions

Hello, Here is a simple patch which adds a bunch of operators (bitwise: & | ^ ~, comparisons: =/== <>/!= < <= > >=, logical: and/&& or/|| xor/^^ not/!) and functions (exp ln if) to pgbench. I've tried to be pg's SQL compatible where appropriate. Also attached is a simple test script. Some