Re: [PATCHES] [BUGS] BUG #3681: fillers are NULL in pgbench
This was applied by Tom. Thanks. --- ITAGAKI Takahiro wrote: Tom Lane [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: ITAGAKI Takahiro [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: All of filler fields in branches, tellers and history is NULL. It is probabbly a mistake because there are fields of char(22-88) in the table definitions. TPC-B requires at least 100 bytes per row for all tables used in it. I'm not in favor of changing this. pgbench has never pretended to be really TPC-B, nor has anyone ever tried to compare its numbers against other TPC-B numbers. On the other hand, people *do* compare pgbench numbers to itself over time, and if we make a change like this it will break comparability of the results. Ok, I feel it reasonable. The attached is a patch to mention it in the source code. Regards, --- ITAGAKI Takahiro NTT Open Source Software Center [ Attachment, skipping... ] ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 2: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster -- Bruce Momjian [EMAIL PROTECTED]http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://postgres.enterprisedb.com + If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. + -- Sent via pgsql-patches mailing list (pgsql-patches@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-patches
Re: [PATCHES] [BUGS] BUG #3681: fillers are NULL in pgbench
This has been saved for the 8.4 release: http://momjian.postgresql.org/cgi-bin/pgpatches_hold --- ITAGAKI Takahiro wrote: Tom Lane [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: ITAGAKI Takahiro [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: All of filler fields in branches, tellers and history is NULL. It is probabbly a mistake because there are fields of char(22-88) in the table definitions. TPC-B requires at least 100 bytes per row for all tables used in it. I'm not in favor of changing this. pgbench has never pretended to be really TPC-B, nor has anyone ever tried to compare its numbers against other TPC-B numbers. On the other hand, people *do* compare pgbench numbers to itself over time, and if we make a change like this it will break comparability of the results. Ok, I feel it reasonable. The attached is a patch to mention it in the source code. Regards, --- ITAGAKI Takahiro NTT Open Source Software Center [ Attachment, skipping... ] ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 2: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster -- Bruce Momjian [EMAIL PROTECTED]http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://postgres.enterprisedb.com + If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. + ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 9: In versions below 8.0, the planner will ignore your desire to choose an index scan if your joining column's datatypes do not match
Re: [PATCHES] [BUGS] BUG #3681: fillers are NULL in pgbench
Tom Lane [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: ITAGAKI Takahiro [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: All of filler fields in branches, tellers and history is NULL. It is probabbly a mistake because there are fields of char(22-88) in the table definitions. TPC-B requires at least 100 bytes per row for all tables used in it. I'm not in favor of changing this. pgbench has never pretended to be really TPC-B, nor has anyone ever tried to compare its numbers against other TPC-B numbers. On the other hand, people *do* compare pgbench numbers to itself over time, and if we make a change like this it will break comparability of the results. Ok, I feel it reasonable. The attached is a patch to mention it in the source code. Regards, --- ITAGAKI Takahiro NTT Open Source Software Center pgbench-tpcb.patch Description: Binary data ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 6: explain analyze is your friend
