On Wed, Jul 31, 2019 at 10:10 AM Fabien COELHO <coe...@cri.ensmp.fr> wrote:
> > Hello Tom, > > >>> I'm also highly dubious about labeling this script "standard TPC-B", > >>> when it resolves only some of the reasons why our traditional script > >>> is not really TPC-B. That's treading on being false advertising. > > > >> IANAL, but it may not even be permissible to claim that we have > >> implemented "standard TPC-B". > > > > Yeah, very likely you can't legally say that unless the TPC > > has certified your test. (Our existing code and docs are quite > > careful to call pgbench's version "TPC-like" or similar weasel > > wording, and never claim that it is really TPC-B or even a close > > approximation.) > > Hmmm. > > I agree that nobody really cares about TPC-B per se. The point of this > patch is to provide a built-in example of recent and useful pgbench > features that match a real specification. > I agree with this. When I was at EnterpriseDB, while it wasn't audited, we had to develop an actual TPC-B implementation because pgbench was too different. pgbench itself isn't that useful as a benchmark tool, imo, but if we have the ability to make it better (i.e. closer to an actual benchmark kit), I think we should. -- Jonah H. Harris
