Hello,
Version one is k' = 1 + (a * k + b) modulo n with a prime with
respect to n, n being the number of keys. This is nearly possible,
but for the modulo operator which is currently missing, and that I'm
planning to submit for this very reason, but probably another time.
That's pretty
Hi,
2014-08-01 16:26 GMT+09:00 Fabien COELHO coe...@cri.ensmp.fr
Maybe somebody who knows more math than I do (like you, probably!) can
come up with something more clever.
I can certainly suggest other formula, but that does not mean beautiful
code, thus would probably be rejected. I'll
On Wed, Jul 30, 2014 at 4:18 PM, Fabien COELHO coe...@cri.ensmp.fr wrote:
nor am I in favor of patch B.
Yep. Would providing these as additional contrib files be more acceptable?
Something like tpc-b-gauss.sql... Otherwise there is no example available
to show the feature.
To be honest, it
On Wed, Jul 30, 2014 at 9:00 PM, Mitsumasa KONDO
kondo.mitsum...@gmail.com wrote:
Hmm... It doesn't have harm for pgbench source code. And, in general,
checking script is useful for avoiding bug.
Not if nobody runs it, or if people run it but don't know what the
output should look like. I
Hello Robert,
[...]
One of the concerns that I have about the proposal of simply slapping a
gaussian or exponential modifier onto \setrandom aid 1 :naccounts is
that, while it will allow you to make part of the relation hot and
another part of the relation cold, you really can't get any
On Thu, Jul 31, 2014 at 10:01 AM, Fabien COELHO coe...@cri.ensmp.fr wrote:
One of the concerns that I have about the proposal of simply slapping a
gaussian or exponential modifier onto \setrandom aid 1 :naccounts is that,
while it will allow you to make part of the relation hot and another part
On Tue, Jul 29, 2014 at 4:41 AM, Fabien COELHO coe...@cri.ensmp.fr wrote:
Attached B patch does turn incorrect setrandom syntax into errors instead
of ignoring extra parameters.
First A patch is repeated to help commitfest references.
Oops, I applied the change on the wrong part:-(
Here is
Hello Robert,
I've committed the changes to pgbench.c and the documentation changes
with some further wordsmithing.
Ok, thanks a lot for your reviews and your help with improving the
documentation.
I don't think including the other changes in patch A is a good idea,
Fine. It was mostly
Hi,
2014-07-31 5:18 GMT+09:00 Fabien COELHO coe...@cri.ensmp.fr:
I've committed the changes to pgbench.c and the documentation changes
with some further wordsmithing.
Ok, thanks a lot for your reviews and your help with improving the
documentation.
Yeah, thanks for all relative members.
Hello Robert,
I wish to agree, but my interpretation of the previous code is that
they were ignored before, so ISTM that we are stuck with keeping the
same unfortunate behavior.
I don't agree. I'm not in a huge hurry to fix all the places where
pgbench currently lacks error checks just
Hello Robert,
3. Similarly, I suggest that the use of gaussian or uniform be an
error when argc 6 OR argc 6. I also suggest that the
parenthesized distribution type be dropped from the error message in
all cases.
I wish to agree, but my interpretation of the previous code is that they
Attached B patch does turn incorrect setrandom syntax into errors instead of
ignoring extra parameters.
First A patch is repeated to help commitfest references.
Oops, I applied the change on the wrong part:-(
Here is the change on part A which checks setrandom syntax, and B for
On 07/17/2014 11:13 PM, Fabien COELHO wrote:
However, ISTM that it is not the purpose of pgbench documentation to be a
primer about what is an exponential or gaussian distribution, so the idea
would yet be to have a relatively compact explanation, and that the
interested but clueless reader
On Wed, Jul 23, 2014 at 12:39 PM, Fabien COELHO coe...@cri.ensmp.fr wrote:
3. Similarly, I suggest that the use of gaussian or uniform be an
error when argc 6 OR argc 6. I also suggest that the
parenthesized distribution type be dropped from the error message in
all cases.
I wish to
Thanks for your modify the patch! I confirmed that It seems to be fine.
I think that our latest patch fill all community comment.
So it is really ready for committer now.
Best regards,
--
Mitsumasa KONDO
Hi,
Thank you for your grate documentation and fix working!!!
It becomes very helpful for understanding our feature.
I add two feature in gauss_B_4.patch.
1) Add gaussianProbability() function
It is same as exponentialProbability(). And the feature is as same as
before.
2) Add result of
Thank you for your grate documentation and fix working!!!
It becomes very helpful for understanding our feature.
Hopefully it will help make it, or part of it, pass through.
I add two feature in gauss_B_4.patch.
1) Add gaussianProbability() function
It is same as exponentialProbability().
Fabien COELHO wrote:
I also have a problem with assert Assert. I finally figured out
that Assert is not compiled in by default, thus it is generally
ignored. So it is more for debugging purposes when activated than
for guarding against some unexpected user errors.
Yes, Assert() is for
On Thu, Jul 17, 2014 at 12:09 AM, Fabien COELHO coe...@cri.ensmp.fr wrote:
pgbench with gaussian exponential, part 1 of 2.
This patch is a subset of the previous patch which only adds the two
new \setrandom gaussian and exponantial variants, but not the
adapted pgbench test cases, as
Hello Robert,
Some review comments:
Thanks a lot for your return.
Please find attached two new parts of the patch (A for setrandom
extension, B for pgbench embedded test case extension).
1. I suggest that getExponentialrand and getGaussianrand be renamed to
getExponentialRand and
Please find attached 2 patches, which are a split of the patch discussed in
this thread.
Please find attached a very minor improvement to apply a code (variable
name) simplification directly in patch A so as to avoid a change in patch
B. The cumulated patch is the same as previous.
(A)
2014-07-18 5:13 GMT+09:00 Fabien COELHO coe...@cri.ensmp.fr:
However, ISTM that it is not the purpose of pgbench documentation to be a
primer about what is an exponential or gaussian distribution, so the idea
would yet be to have a relatively compact explanation, and that the
interested but
For example, when we set the number of transaction 10,000 (-t 1),
range of aid is 100,000,
and --exponential is 10, decile percents is under following as you know.
decile percents: 63.2% 23.3% 8.6% 3.1% 1.2% 0.4% 0.2% 0.1% 0.0% 0.0%
highest/lowest percent of the range: 9.5% 0.0%
They
Please find attached 2 patches, which are a split of the patch discussed
in this thread.
(A) add gaussian exponential options to pgbench \setrandom
the patch includes sql test files.
There is no change in the *code* from previous already reviewed
submissions, so I do not think that it
On Wed, Jul 16, 2014 at 12:57 AM, Fabien COELHO coe...@cri.ensmp.fr wrote:
Well, I think the feedback has been pretty clear, honestly. Here's
what I'm unhappy about: I can't understand what these options are
actually doing.
We can try to improve the documentation, once more!
However, ISTM
However, ISTM that it is not the purpose of pgbench documentation to be a
primer about what is an exponential or gaussian distribution, so the idea
would yet be to have a relatively compact explanation, and that the
interested but clueless reader would document h..self from wikipedia or a
text
pgbench with gaussian exponential, part 1 of 2.
This patch is a subset of the previous patch which only adds the two
new \setrandom gaussian and exponantial variants, but not the
adapted pgbench test cases, as suggested by Fujii Masao.
There is no new code nor code changes.
The corresponding
Hello Robert,
Well, I think the feedback has been pretty clear, honestly. Here's
what I'm unhappy about: I can't understand what these options are
actually doing.
We can try to improve the documentation, once more!
However, ISTM that it is not the purpose of pgbench documentation to be a
On Sun, Jul 13, 2014 at 2:27 AM, Mitsumasa KONDO
kondo.mitsum...@gmail.com wrote:
I still agree with Fabien-san. I cannot understand why our logical proposal
isn't accepted...
Well, I think the feedback has been pretty clear, honestly. Here's
what I'm unhappy about: I can't understand what
Hi,
2014-07-04 19:05 GMT+09:00 Andres Freund and...@2ndquadrant.com:
On 2014-07-04 11:59:23 +0200, Fabien COELHO wrote:
Yea. I certainly disagree with the patch in it's current state because
it
copies the same 15 lines several times with a two word difference.
Independent of whether we
Yea. I certainly disagree with the patch in it's current state because
it copies the same 15 lines several times with a two word difference.
Independent of whether we want those options, I don't think that's going
to fly.
I liked a simple static string for the different variants, which
On 2014-07-04 11:59:23 +0200, Fabien COELHO wrote:
Yea. I certainly disagree with the patch in it's current state because it
copies the same 15 lines several times with a two word difference.
Independent of whether we want those options, I don't think that's going
to fly.
I liked a simple
Hello Gavin,
decile percents: 69.9% 21.0% 6.3% 1.9% 0.6% 0.2% 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
probability of fist/last percent of the range: 11.3% 0.0%
I would suggest that probabilities should NEVER be expressed in percentages!
As a percentage probability looks weird, and is never used for serious
On 03/07/14 20:58, Fabien COELHO wrote:
Hello Gavin,
decile percents: 69.9% 21.0% 6.3% 1.9% 0.6% 0.2% 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
probability of fist/last percent of the range: 11.3% 0.0%
I would suggest that probabilities should NEVER be expressed in
percentages! As a percentage probability
On Wed, Jul 2, 2014 at 6:05 PM, Fabien COELHO coe...@cri.ensmp.fr wrote:
Hello Mitsumasa-san,
And I'm also interested in your decile percents output like under
followings,
decile percents: 39.6% 24.0% 14.6% 8.8% 5.4% 3.3% 2.0% 1.2% 0.7% 0.4%
Sure, I'm really fine with that.
I think
On 2014-07-03 21:27:53 +0900, Fujii Masao wrote:
Add drawing random integers with a Gaussian or truncated exponentional
distributions to pgbench.
Test variants with these distributions are also provided and triggered
with options --gaussian=... and --exponential=
IIRC we've not
Hello Mitsumasa-san,
And I'm also interested in your decile percents output like under
followings,
decile percents: 39.6% 24.0% 14.6% 8.8% 5.4% 3.3% 2.0% 1.2% 0.7% 0.4%
Sure, I'm really fine with that.
I think that it is easier than before. Sum of decile percents is just 100%.
That's a
I have just updated the wording so that it may be clearer:
Oops, I have sent the wrong patch, without the wording fix. Here is the
real updated version, which I tested.
probability of fist/last percent of the range: 11.3% 0.0%
--
Fabien.diff --git a/contrib/pgbench/pgbench.c
On 02/07/14 21:05, Fabien COELHO wrote:
Hello Mitsumasa-san,
And I'm also interested in your decile percents output like under
followings,
decile percents: 39.6% 24.0% 14.6% 8.8% 5.4% 3.3% 2.0% 1.2% 0.7% 0.4%
Sure, I'm really fine with that.
I think that it is easier than before. Sum of
Hello Fabien-san,
I have checked your v13 patch, and tested the new exponential distribution
generating algorithm. It works fine and less or no overhead than previous
version.
Great work! And I agree with your proposal.
And I'm also interested in your decile percents output like under
Please find attached an updated version v13 for this patch.
I have (I hope) significanlty improved the documentation, including not so
helpful mathematical explanation about the actual meaning of the threshold
value. If a native English speaker could check the documentation, it would
be
(2014/03/17 22:37), Tom Lane wrote:
KONDO Mitsumasa kondo.mitsum...@lab.ntt.co.jp writes:
(2014/03/17 18:02), Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
On 03/17/2014 10:40 AM, KONDO Mitsumasa wrote:
There is an infinite number of variants of the TPC-B test that we could
include
in pgbench. If we start
(2014/03/17 23:29), Robert Haas wrote:
On Sat, Mar 15, 2014 at 4:50 AM, Mitsumasa KONDO
kondo.mitsum...@gmail.com wrote:
There are explanations and computations as comments in the code. If it is
about the documentation, I'm not sure that a very precise mathematical
definition will help a lot of
And I find new useful point of this feature. Under following results are
'--gaussian=20' case and '--gaussian=2' case, and postgresql setting is same.
[mitsu-ko@pg-rex31 pgbench]$ ./pgbench -c8 -j4 --gaussian=20 -T30 -P 5
starting vacuum...end.
progress: 5.0 s, 4285.8 tps, lat 1.860 ms stddev
On 03/18/2014 11:57 AM, KONDO Mitsumasa wrote:
I think that this feature will be also useful for survey new buffer-replace
algorithm and checkpoint strategy, so on.
Sure. No doubt about that.
If we remove this option, it is really dissapointed..
As long as we get the \setrandom changes in,
Hi Heikki-san,
(2014/03/17 14:39), KONDO Mitsumasa wrote:
(2014/03/15 15:53), Fabien COELHO wrote:
Hello Heikki,
A couple of comments:
* There should be an explicit \setrandom ... uniform option too, even though
you get that implicitly if you don't specify the distribution
Fix. We can use
On 03/15/2014 08:53 AM, Fabien COELHO wrote:
* Does min and max really make sense for gaussian and exponential
distributions? For gaussian, I would expect mean and standard deviation as
the parameters, not min/max/threshold.
Yes... and no:-) The aim is to draw an integer primary key from a
On 03/17/2014 10:40 AM, KONDO Mitsumasa wrote:
By the way, you seem to want to remove --gaussian=NUM and --exponential=NUM
command options. Can you tell me the objective reason? I think pgbench is the
benchmark test on PostgreSQL and default benchmark is TPC-B-like benchmark.
It is written in
(2014/03/17 17:46), Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
On 03/15/2014 08:53 AM, Fabien COELHO wrote:
* Does min and max really make sense for gaussian and exponential
distributions? For gaussian, I would expect mean and standard deviation as
the parameters, not min/max/threshold.
Yes... and no:-) The
(2014/03/17 18:02), Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
On 03/17/2014 10:40 AM, KONDO Mitsumasa wrote:
By the way, you seem to want to remove --gaussian=NUM and --exponential=NUM
command options. Can you tell me the objective reason? I think pgbench is the
benchmark test on PostgreSQL and default
On Mon, Mar 17, 2014 at 7:07 PM, KONDO Mitsumasa
kondo.mitsum...@lab.ntt.co.jp wrote:
(2014/03/17 18:02), Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
On 03/17/2014 10:40 AM, KONDO Mitsumasa wrote:
By the way, you seem to want to remove --gaussian=NUM and
--exponential=NUM
command options. Can you tell me the
KONDO Mitsumasa kondo.mitsum...@lab.ntt.co.jp writes:
(2014/03/17 18:02), Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
On 03/17/2014 10:40 AM, KONDO Mitsumasa wrote:
There is an infinite number of variants of the TPC-B test that we could
include
in pgbench. If we start adding every one of them, we're quickly
On Sat, Mar 15, 2014 at 4:50 AM, Mitsumasa KONDO
kondo.mitsum...@gmail.com wrote:
There are explanations and computations as comments in the code. If it is
about the documentation, I'm not sure that a very precise mathematical
definition will help a lot of people, and might rather hinder
(2014/03/15 15:53), Fabien COELHO wrote:
Hello Heikki,
A couple of comments:
* There should be an explicit \setrandom ... uniform option too, even though
you get that implicitly if you don't specify the distribution
Indeed. I agree. I suggested it, but it got lost.
* What exactly does
Hello Heikki,
A couple of comments:
* There should be an explicit \setrandom ... uniform option too, even
though you get that implicitly if you don't specify the distribution
Indeed. I agree. I suggested it, but it got lost.
* What exactly does the threshold mean? The docs informally
Oh, sorry, I forgot to write URL referring picture.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Normal_distribution
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exponential_distribution
regards,
--
Mitsumasa KONDO
2014-03-15 17:50 GMT+09:00 Mitsumasa KONDO kondo.mitsum...@gmail.com:
Hi
2014-03-15 15:53 GMT+09:00 Fabien
Nice drawing!
* How about setting the variable as a float instead of integer? Would
seem more natural to me. At least as an option.
Which variable? The values set by setrandom are mostly used for primary
keys. We really want integers in a range.
I think he said threshold parameter.
2014-03-15 19:04 GMT+09:00 Fabien COELHO coe...@cri.ensmp.fr:
Nice drawing!
* How about setting the variable as a float instead of integer? Would
seem more natural to me. At least as an option.
Which variable? The values set by setrandom are mostly used for primary
keys. We really
Well, when we set '--gaussian=NUM' or '--exponential=NUM' on command line, we
can see access probability of top N records in result of final output. This
out put is under following,
Indeed. I had forgotten this point. This is a significant information that
I would not like to loose.
This
On 03/13/2014 04:00 PM, Fujii Masao wrote:
On Thu, Mar 13, 2014 at 10:51 PM, Heikki Linnakangas
hlinnakan...@vmware.com wrote:
IMHO we should just implement the \setrandom changes, and not add any of
these options to modify the standard test workload. If someone wants to run
TPC-B workload with
On Tue, Mar 11, 2014 at 1:49 PM, KONDO Mitsumasa
kondo.mitsum...@lab.ntt.co.jp wrote:
(2014/03/09 1:49), Fabien COELHO wrote:
Hello Mitsumasa-san,
New \setrandom interface is here.
\setrandom var min max [gaussian threshold | exponential threshold]
Attached patch realizes this
On 03/13/2014 03:17 PM, Fujii Masao wrote:
On Tue, Mar 11, 2014 at 1:49 PM, KONDO Mitsumasa
kondo.mitsum...@lab.ntt.co.jp wrote:
(2014/03/09 1:49), Fabien COELHO wrote:
I'm okay with this UI and its implementation.
OK.
We should do the same discussion for the UI of command-line option?
On Thu, Mar 13, 2014 at 10:51 PM, Heikki Linnakangas
hlinnakan...@vmware.com wrote:
On 03/13/2014 03:17 PM, Fujii Masao wrote:
On Tue, Mar 11, 2014 at 1:49 PM, KONDO Mitsumasa
kondo.mitsum...@lab.ntt.co.jp wrote:
(2014/03/09 1:49), Fabien COELHO wrote:
I'm okay with this UI and its
We should do the same discussion for the UI of command-line option? The
patch adds two options --gaussian and --exponential, but this UI seems
to be a bit inconsistent with the UI for \setrandom.
Instead, we can use something like --distribution=[uniform | gaussian |
exponential].
Hmmm.
Hi,
(2014/03/14 4:21), Fabien COELHO wrote:
We should do the same discussion for the UI of command-line option? The patch
adds two options --gaussian and --exponential, but this UI seems to be a bit
inconsistent with the UI for \setrandom.
Instead, we can use something like
(2014/03/13 23:00), Fujii Masao wrote:
On Thu, Mar 13, 2014 at 10:51 PM, Heikki Linnakangas
hlinnakan...@vmware.com wrote:
On 03/13/2014 03:17 PM, Fujii Masao wrote:
On Tue, Mar 11, 2014 at 1:49 PM, KONDO Mitsumasa
kondo.mitsum...@lab.ntt.co.jp wrote:
(2014/03/09 1:49), Fabien COELHO wrote:
(2014/03/09 1:49), Fabien COELHO wrote:
Hello Mitsumasa-san,
New \setrandom interface is here.
\setrandom var min max [gaussian threshold | exponential threshold]
Attached patch realizes this interface, but it has little bit ugly codeing in
executeStatement() and process_commands()..
I
Hello Mitsumasa-san,
New \setrandom interface is here.
\setrandom var min max [gaussian threshold | exponential threshold]
Attached patch realizes this interface, but it has little bit ugly codeing in
executeStatement() and process_commands()..
I think it is not too bad. The ignore extra
Hi,
(2014/03/04 17:42), KONDO Mitsumasa wrote: (2014/03/04 17:28), Fabien COELHO
wrote:
OK. I'm not sure which idia is the best. So I wait for comments in
community:)
Hmmm. Maybe you can do what Tom voted for, he is the committer:-)
Yeah, but he might change his mind by our disscuttion. So
(2014/03/07 16:02), KONDO Mitsumasa wrote:
And other cases are classified under following.
\setrandom var min max gaussian #hoge -- uniform
Oh, it's wrong... It will be..
\setrandom var min max gaussian #hoge -- ERROR
Regards,
--
Mitsumasa KONDO
NTT Open Source Software Center
--
Sent via
OK. I'm not sure which idia is the best. So I wait for comments in
community:)
Hmmm. Maybe you can do what Tom voted for, he is the committer:-)
--
Fabien.
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
(2014/03/04 17:28), Fabien COELHO wrote:
OK. I'm not sure which idia is the best. So I wait for comments in community:)
Hmmm. Maybe you can do what Tom voted for, he is the committer:-)
Yeah, but he might change his mind by our disscuttion. So I wait untill tomorrow,
and if nothing to comment,
(2014/03/03 16:51), Fabien COELHO wrote:\setrandom foo 1 10 [uniform]
\setrandom foo 1 :size gaussian 3.6
\setrandom foo 1 100 exponential 7.2
It's good design. I think it will become more low overhead at part of parsing
in pgbench, because comparison of strings will be
Hello Alvaro Tom,
Alvaro Herrera alvhe...@2ndquadrant.com writes:
Seems that in the review so far, Fabien has focused mainly in the
mathematical properties of the new random number generation. That seems
perfectly fine, but no comment has been made about the chosen UI for the
feature.
Per
(2014/03/02 22:32), Fabien COELHO wrote:
Alvaro Herrera alvhe...@2ndquadrant.com writes:
Seems that in the review so far, Fabien has focused mainly in the
mathematical properties of the new random number generation. That seems
perfectly fine, but no comment has been made about the chosen UI
\setrandom foo 1 10 [uniform]
\setrandom foo 1 :size gaussian 3.6
\setrandom foo 1 100 exponential 7.2
It's good design. I think it will become more low overhead at part of parsing
in pgbench, because comparison of strings will be redeced(maybe). And I'd
like to remove [uniform],
Seems that in the review so far, Fabien has focused mainly in the
mathematical properties of the new random number generation. That seems
perfectly fine, but no comment has been made about the chosen UI for the
feature. Per the few initial messages in the thread, in the patch as
submitted you
Alvaro Herrera alvhe...@2ndquadrant.com writes:
Seems that in the review so far, Fabien has focused mainly in the
mathematical properties of the new random number generation. That seems
perfectly fine, but no comment has been made about the chosen UI for the
feature. Per the few initial
Gaussian Pgbench v8 patch by Mitsumasa KONDO review patch v9.
* The purpose of the patch is to allow a pgbench script to draw from normally
distributed or exponentially distributed integer values instead of uniformly
distributed.
This is a valuable contribution to enable pgbench to
(2014/02/16 7:38), Fabien COELHO wrote:
I have updated the patch (v7) based on Mitsumasa latest v6:
- some code simplifications formula changes.
- I've added explicit looping probability computations in comments
to show the (low) looping probability of the iterative search.
-
Gaussian Pgbench v6 patch by Mitsumasa KONDO review patch v7.
* The purpose of the patch is to allow a pgbench script to draw from normally
distributed or exponentially distributed integer values instead of uniformly
distributed.
This is a valuable contribution to enable pgbench to
I add exponential distribution random generator (and little bit
refactoring:) ).
I use inverse transform method to create its distribution. It's very
simple method that is
created by - log (rand()). We can control slope of distribution using
threshold parameter.
It is same as gaussian threshold.
Hi Febien,
Thank you very much for your very detail and useful comments!
I read your comment, I agree most of your advice:)
Attached patch is fixed for your comment. That are...
- Remove redundant long-option.
- We can use --gaussian=NUM -S or --gaussian=NUMN -N options.
- Add sentence in
Sorry, previos attached patch has small bug.
Please use latest one.
134 - return min + (int64) (max - min + 1) * rand;
134 + return min + (int64)((max - min + 1) * rand);
Regards,
--
Mitsumasa KONDO
NTT Open Source Software Center
*** a/contrib/pgbench/pgbench.c
---
Hello,
I revise my gaussian pgbench patch which wss requested from community.
With a lot of delay for which I apologise, please find hereafter the
review.
Gaussian Pgbench v3 patch by Mitsumasa KONDO review
* The purpose of the patch is to allow a pgbench script to draw from normally
On Thu, Nov 21, 2013 at 9:13 AM, Heikki Linnakangas
hlinnakan...@vmware.com wrote:
So what I'd actually like to see is \setgaussian, for use in custom scripts.
+1. I'd really like to be able to run a benchmark with a Gaussian and
uniform distribution side-by-side for comparative purposes - we
On 20/12/13 09:36, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
On Thu, Nov 21, 2013 at 9:13 AM, Heikki Linnakangas
hlinnakan...@vmware.com wrote:
So what I'd actually like to see is \setgaussian, for use in custom scripts.
+1. I'd really like to be able to run a benchmark with a Gaussian and
uniform distribution
On 12/19/13 5:52 PM, Gavin Flower wrote:
Curious, wouldn't the common usage pattern tend to favour a skewed
distribution, such as the Poisson Distribution (it has been over 40
years since I studied this area, so there may be better candidates).
Some people like database load testing with a
3. That said, this could be handy. But it would be even more handy if you
could get Gaussian random numbers with \setrandom, so that you could use this
with custom scripts. And once you implement that, do we actually need the -g
flag anymore? If you want TPC-B transactions with gaussian
On 30.09.2013 07:12, KONDO Mitsumasa wrote:
(2013/09/27 5:29), Peter Eisentraut wrote:
This patch no longer applies.
I will try to create this patch in next commit fest.
If you have nice idea, please send me!
A few thoughts on this:
1. DBT-2 uses a non-uniform distribution. You can use that
Sorry for my delay reply.
Since I have had vacation last week, I replyed from gmail.
However, it was stalled post to pgsql-hackers:-(
(2013/09/21 6:05), Kevin Grittner wrote:
You had accidentally added to the CF In Progress.
Oh, I had completely mistook this CF schedule :-)
Maybe, Horiguchi-san
Sorry for my delay reply.
Since I have had vacation last week, I replied from gmail.
However, it was stalled post to pgsql-hackers:-(
(2013/09/21 7:54), Fabien COELHO wrote:
However this pattern induces stronger cache effects which are maybe not too
realistic,
because neighboring keys in the
(2013/09/27 5:29), Peter Eisentraut wrote:
This patch no longer applies.
I will try to create this patch in next commit fest.
If you have nice idea, please send me!
Regards,
--
Mitsumasa KONDO
NTT Open Source Software Center
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list
On 9/20/13 2:42 AM, KONDO Mitsumasa wrote:
I create gaussinan distribution pgbench patch that can access records with
gaussian frequency. And I submit this commit fest.
This patch no longer applies.
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to
However this pattern induces stronger cache effects which are maybe not
too realistic,
because neighboring keys in the middle are more likely to be chosen.
I think that your opinion is right. However, in effect, it is a
paseudo-benchmark, so that I think that such a simple mechanism is also
You had accidentally added to the CF In Progress.
Oh, I had completely mistook this CF schedule :-)
Maybe, Horiguchi-san is same situation...
However, because of your moving, I become first submitter in next CF.
Thank you for moving :-)
--
Mitsumasa KONDO
KONDO Mitsumasa kondo.mitsum...@lab.ntt.co.jp wrote:
I create gaussinan distribution pgbench patch that can access
records with gaussian frequency. And I submit this commit fest.
Thanks!
I have moved this to the Open CommitFest, though.
Hello Mitsumasa,
In the general transaction situation, clients access for all records equally is
hard to happen. I think gaussian distribution access patterns are most of
transaction petterns in general. My patch realizes neary this access pattern.
That is great! I was just looking for
98 matches
Mail list logo
