On Wed, Jul 31, 2019 at 2:11 PM Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > > 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. > > [ shrug... ] TBH, the proposed patch does not look to me like actual > benchmark kit; it looks like a toy. Nobody who was intent on making their > benchmark numbers look good would do a significant amount of work in a > slow, ad-hoc interpreted language.
According to TPC themselves, "In contrast to TPC-A, TPC-B is not an OLTP benchmark. Rather, TPC-B can be looked at as a database stress test..." [1]. Sounds like classic pgbench to me. Not sure where that leaves this patch. What problem is it actually trying to solve? [1] http://www.tpc.org/tpcb/ -- Peter Geoghegan
