Here is a updated patch to add query modes into pgbench in order to
measure performance of simple protocol, extended protocol and
prepared statements with it.
[PATCHES] Patch for testing query modes on pgbench
http://momjian.us/mhonarc/patches/msg00335.html
A new runtime option (-M) is added:
Hi Tom,
... eg backend/nodes/, optimizer/util/clauses.c, ruleutils.c...)
Actually, on further thought ruleutils.c represents one of the biggest
stumbling blocks here. We have to be able to reverse-compile the parse
tree into something that's at least semantically equivalent to the
original
Patch removed from patch queue --- NikhilS, please resubmit when you are
ready. Thanks.
---
NikhilS wrote:
Hi,
As per discussion on -hackers, a patch which allows updates to use
subselects is attached with this mail.
Hi,
I'm playing with the snapshot code to create a new module to stash used
snapshots and refcount them.
It occured to me that a first easy step is to separate the relevant code
from tqual.c into a new file, snapshot.c, and split tqual.h in two
creating snapshot.h. Basically the internals of
Richard Rowell [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I discussed this hack with Neil and Josh in Ottawa back in May. I
took a stab at it a few weeks ago and below are the results. It is
mostly modeled after the existing inline_function. The approach taken
is to recursively cleanup the RTable where
Patch applied. Thanks.
--
Tatsuo Ishii
SRA OSS, Inc. Japan
Hi,
I ran pgbench with -C option. Here is an output.
% pgbench -C -c 10 -t 100 bench
starting vacuum...end.
transaction type: TPC-B (sort of)
scaling factor: 1
number of clients: 10
number of transactions per client: 100
Here is a updated patch to add query modes into pgbench in order to
measure performance of simple protocol, extended protocol and
prepared statements with it.
[PATCHES] Patch for testing query modes on pgbench
http://momjian.us/mhonarc/patches/msg00335.html
A new runtime option (-M) is
Tatsuo Ishii [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The cause of this is obvious and easy to fix. However I wonder this is
because of accidental old or wrong patches. Can you resubmit new patches
against CVS Head?
Thanks for your review. Sorry, it's a wrong patch.
I found another bugs in handling external
Patches applied. Thanks.
--
Tatsuo Ishii
SRA OSS, Inc. Japan
Tatsuo Ishii [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The cause of this is obvious and easy to fix. However I wonder this is
because of accidental old or wrong patches. Can you resubmit new patches
against CVS Head?
Thanks for your review.