Re: [HACKERS] too much pgbench init output

2013-01-06 Thread Tatsuo Ishii
>>> AFAIK the "5 second" logging is much quieter in most cases (and a bit >>> more verbose when the initialization gets very slower), so I think the >>> "quiet" logging is not a bad match although maybe there's a better name. >>> >>> This change (adding the elapsed/remaining fields to the original

Re: [HACKERS] too much pgbench init output

2013-01-06 Thread Tomas Vondra
On 6.1.2013 10:35, Tatsuo Ishii wrote: >>> If we do so, probably '-q' is not appropeate option name any more, >>> since the only difference between old logging and new one is, the >>> former is printed every 1 lines while the latter is every 5 >>> seconds, which is not really "quiet". What do y

Re: [HACKERS] too much pgbench init output

2013-01-06 Thread Tatsuo Ishii
>> If we do so, probably '-q' is not appropeate option name any more, >> since the only difference between old logging and new one is, the >> former is printed every 1 lines while the latter is every 5 >> seconds, which is not really "quiet". What do you think? > > AFAIK the "5 second" logging

Re: [HACKERS] too much pgbench init output

2013-01-05 Thread Tomas Vondra
On 6.1.2013 05:07, Tatsuo Ishii wrote: >> On 6.1.2013 03:03, Tatsuo Ishii wrote: >>> As a committer, I have looked into the patch. I noticed two things: >>> >>> 1) In the help you put '-q' option into "Common options" section. I >>> think this should be moved to "Initialization options" section bec

Re: [HACKERS] too much pgbench init output

2013-01-05 Thread Tatsuo Ishii
> On 6.1.2013 03:03, Tatsuo Ishii wrote: >> As a committer, I have looked into the patch. I noticed two things: >> >> 1) In the help you put '-q' option into "Common options" section. I >> think this should be moved to "Initialization options" section because >> the option is only applied while in

Re: [HACKERS] too much pgbench init output

2013-01-05 Thread Tomas Vondra
On 6.1.2013 03:03, Tatsuo Ishii wrote: > As a committer, I have looked into the patch. I noticed two things: > > 1) In the help you put '-q' option into "Common options" section. I > think this should be moved to "Initialization options" section because > the option is only applied while initializ

Re: [HACKERS] too much pgbench init output

2013-01-05 Thread Tatsuo Ishii
> On 19.12.2012 06:30, Jeevan Chalke wrote: >> >> >> >> On Mon, Dec 17, 2012 at 5:37 AM, Tomas Vondra > > wrote: >> >> Hi, >> >> attached is a new version of the patch that >> >> (a) converts the 'log_step_seconds' variable to a constant (and does >>

Re: [HACKERS] too much pgbench init output

2012-12-26 Thread Jeevan Chalke
Looks good to me. Will mark "Ready for Committer" Thanks On Thu, Dec 20, 2012 at 2:30 AM, Tomas Vondra wrote: > On 19.12.2012 06:30, Jeevan Chalke wrote: > > > > > > > > On Mon, Dec 17, 2012 at 5:37 AM, Tomas Vondra > > wrote: > > > > Hi, > > > > attached is a n

Re: [HACKERS] too much pgbench init output

2012-12-19 Thread Tomas Vondra
On 19.12.2012 06:30, Jeevan Chalke wrote: > > > > On Mon, Dec 17, 2012 at 5:37 AM, Tomas Vondra > wrote: > > Hi, > > attached is a new version of the patch that > > (a) converts the 'log_step_seconds' variable to a constant (and does > not allow chan

Re: [HACKERS] too much pgbench init output

2012-12-18 Thread Jeevan Chalke
On Mon, Dec 17, 2012 at 5:37 AM, Tomas Vondra wrote: > Hi, > > attached is a new version of the patch that > > (a) converts the 'log_step_seconds' variable to a constant (and does > not allow changing it using a command-line option etc.) > > (b) keeps the current logging as a default > > (c)

Re: [HACKERS] too much pgbench init output

2012-12-16 Thread Tomas Vondra
Hi, attached is a new version of the patch that (a) converts the 'log_step_seconds' variable to a constant (and does not allow changing it using a command-line option etc.) (b) keeps the current logging as a default (c) adds a "-q" switch that enables the new logging with a 5-second int

Re: [HACKERS] too much pgbench init output

2012-12-11 Thread Jeevan Chalke
On Sun, Dec 9, 2012 at 8:11 AM, Tomas Vondra wrote: > On 20.11.2012 08:22, Jeevan Chalke wrote: > > Hi, > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 20, 2012 at 12:08 AM, Tomas Vondra > > wrote: > > > > On 19.11.2012 11:59, Jeevan Chalke wrote: > > > Hi, > > > > > > I gone throu

Re: [HACKERS] too much pgbench init output

2012-12-08 Thread Tomas Vondra
On 20.11.2012 08:22, Jeevan Chalke wrote: > Hi, > > > On Tue, Nov 20, 2012 at 12:08 AM, Tomas Vondra > wrote: > > On 19.11.2012 11:59, Jeevan Chalke wrote: > > Hi, > > > > I gone through the discussion for this patch and here is my review: > > > > T

Re: [HACKERS] too much pgbench init output

2012-11-19 Thread Jeevan Chalke
Hi, On Tue, Nov 20, 2012 at 12:08 AM, Tomas Vondra wrote: > On 19.11.2012 11:59, Jeevan Chalke wrote: > > Hi, > > > > I gone through the discussion for this patch and here is my review: > > > > The main aim of this patch is to reduce the number of log lines. It is > > also suggested to use an o

Re: [HACKERS] too much pgbench init output

2012-11-19 Thread Tomas Vondra
On 19.11.2012 11:59, Jeevan Chalke wrote: > Hi, > > I gone through the discussion for this patch and here is my review: > > The main aim of this patch is to reduce the number of log lines. It is > also suggested to use an options to provide the interval but few of us > are not much agree on it. S

Re: [HACKERS] too much pgbench init output

2012-11-19 Thread Jeevan Chalke
Hi, I gone through the discussion for this patch and here is my review: The main aim of this patch is to reduce the number of log lines. It is also suggested to use an options to provide the interval but few of us are not much agree on it. So final discussion ended at keeping 5 sec interval betwe

Re: [HACKERS] too much pgbench init output

2012-11-11 Thread Tomas Vondra
On 23.10.2012 18:21, Robert Haas wrote: > On Tue, Oct 23, 2012 at 12:02 PM, Alvaro Herrera > wrote: >> Tomas Vondra wrote: >> >>> I've been thinking about this a bit more, and do propose to use an >>> option that determines "logging step" i.e. number of items (either >>> directly or as a percentag

Re: [HACKERS] too much pgbench init output

2012-10-23 Thread Robert Haas
On Tue, Oct 23, 2012 at 12:02 PM, Alvaro Herrera wrote: > Tomas Vondra wrote: > >> I've been thinking about this a bit more, and do propose to use an >> option that determines "logging step" i.e. number of items (either >> directly or as a percentage) between log lines. >> >> The attached patch de

Re: [HACKERS] too much pgbench init output

2012-10-23 Thread Alvaro Herrera
Tomas Vondra wrote: > I've been thinking about this a bit more, and do propose to use an > option that determines "logging step" i.e. number of items (either > directly or as a percentage) between log lines. > > The attached patch defines a new option "--logging-step" that accepts > either intege

Re: [HACKERS] too much pgbench init output

2012-09-16 Thread Tomas Vondra
On 5.9.2012 06:17, Robert Haas wrote: > On Tue, Sep 4, 2012 at 11:31 PM, Peter Eisentraut wrote: >> On Tue, 2012-09-04 at 23:14 -0400, Robert Haas wrote: >>> Actually, this whole things seems like a solution in search of a >>> problem to me. We just reduced the verbosity of pgbench -i tenfold in

Re: [HACKERS] too much pgbench init output

2012-09-05 Thread Peter Eisentraut
On Tue, 2012-09-04 at 23:44 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > > b) There is no indication of where the end is. > > Well, surely *that* can be fixed in a noncontroversial way: just > print "M/N tuples done", where N is the target. I have made this change. I won't pursue using \r if others find it useful a

Re: [HACKERS] too much pgbench init output

2012-09-04 Thread Pavan Deolasee
On Wed, Sep 5, 2012 at 9:47 AM, Robert Haas wrote: > > Actually it'd be nice to even get a bit more output: say, a timestamp > on each line, and a completion percentage... but now I'm getting > greedy. > > May be we need a verbosity level and print a lot less or a lot more information than what w

Re: [HACKERS] too much pgbench init output

2012-09-04 Thread Robert Haas
On Tue, Sep 4, 2012 at 11:31 PM, Peter Eisentraut wrote: > On Tue, 2012-09-04 at 23:14 -0400, Robert Haas wrote: >> Actually, this whole things seems like a solution in search of a >> problem to me. We just reduced the verbosity of pgbench -i tenfold in >> the very recent past - I would have thou

Re: [HACKERS] too much pgbench init output

2012-09-04 Thread Tom Lane
Peter Eisentraut writes: > On Tue, 2012-09-04 at 23:14 -0400, Robert Haas wrote: >> Actually, this whole things seems like a solution in search of a >> problem to me. We just reduced the verbosity of pgbench -i tenfold in >> the very recent past - I would have thought that enough to address >> th

Re: [HACKERS] too much pgbench init output

2012-09-04 Thread Peter Eisentraut
On Tue, 2012-09-04 at 23:14 -0400, Robert Haas wrote: > Actually, this whole things seems like a solution in search of a > problem to me. We just reduced the verbosity of pgbench -i tenfold in > the very recent past - I would have thought that enough to address > this problem. But maybe not. The

Re: [HACKERS] too much pgbench init output

2012-09-04 Thread Robert Haas
On Tue, Sep 4, 2012 at 8:35 PM, Tom Lane wrote: > Peter Eisentraut writes: >> On 9/1/12 6:30 AM, Robert Haas wrote: >>> On Sat, Sep 1, 2012 at 12:00 AM, Peter Eisentraut wrote: When initializing a large database, pgbench writes tons of "%d tuples done" lines. I propose to change this

Re: [HACKERS] too much pgbench init output

2012-09-04 Thread Tom Lane
Peter Eisentraut writes: > On 9/1/12 6:30 AM, Robert Haas wrote: >> On Sat, Sep 1, 2012 at 12:00 AM, Peter Eisentraut wrote: >>> When initializing a large database, pgbench writes tons of "%d tuples >>> done" lines. I propose to change this to a sort of progress counter >>> that stays on the sam

Re: [HACKERS] too much pgbench init output

2012-09-04 Thread Peter Eisentraut
On 9/1/12 6:30 AM, Robert Haas wrote: > On Sat, Sep 1, 2012 at 12:00 AM, Peter Eisentraut wrote: >> When initializing a large database, pgbench writes tons of "%d tuples >> done" lines. I propose to change this to a sort of progress counter >> that stays on the same line, as in the attached patch

Re: [HACKERS] too much pgbench init output

2012-09-01 Thread Tomas Vondra
On 1 Září 2012, 12:30, Robert Haas wrote: > On Sat, Sep 1, 2012 at 12:00 AM, Peter Eisentraut wrote: >> When initializing a large database, pgbench writes tons of "%d tuples >> done" lines. I propose to change this to a sort of progress counter >> that stays on the same line, as in the attached p

Re: [HACKERS] too much pgbench init output

2012-09-01 Thread Robert Haas
On Sat, Sep 1, 2012 at 12:00 AM, Peter Eisentraut wrote: > When initializing a large database, pgbench writes tons of "%d tuples > done" lines. I propose to change this to a sort of progress counter > that stays on the same line, as in the attached patch. I'm not sure I like this - what if the o

[HACKERS] too much pgbench init output

2012-08-31 Thread Peter Eisentraut
When initializing a large database, pgbench writes tons of "%d tuples done" lines. I propose to change this to a sort of progress counter that stays on the same line, as in the attached patch. diff --git a/contrib/pgbench/pgbench.c b/contrib/pgbench/pgbench.c index 00cab73..b5f3054 100644 --- a/co