On Fri, Sep 13, 2019 at 6:36 PM Alvaro Herrera <alvhe...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: > > On 2019-Sep-13, Amit Kapila wrote: > > > I would like to take inputs from others as well for the display part > > of this patch. After this patch, for a simple-update pgbench test, > > the changed output will be as follows (note: partition method and > > partitions): > > > pgbench.exe -c 4 -j 4 -T 10 -N postgres > > starting vacuum...end. > > transaction type: <builtin: simple update> > > scaling factor: 1 > > partition method: hash > > partitions: 3 > > query mode: simple > > number of clients: 4 > > number of threads: 4 > > duration: 10 s > > number of transactions actually processed: 14563 > > latency average = 2.749 ms > > tps = 1454.899150 (including connections establishing) > > tps = 1466.689412 (excluding connections establishing) > > > > What do others think about this? This will be the case when the user > > has used --partitions option in pgbench, otherwise, it won't change. > > I wonder what's the intended usage of this output ... it seems to be > getting a bit too long. Is this intended for machine processing? I > would rather have more things per line in a more compact header. > But then I'm not the kind of person who automates multiple pgbench runs. > Maybe we can get some input from Tomas, who does -- how do you automate > extracting data from collected pgbench output, or do you instead just > redirect the output to a file whose path/name indicates the parameters > that were used? (I do the latter.) > > I mean, if we changed it like this (and I'm not proposing to do it in > this patch, this is only an example), would it bother anyone? > > $ pgbench -x -y -z ... > starting vacuum...end. > scaling factor: 1 partition method: hash partitions: 1 > transaction type: <builtin: simple update> query mode: simple > number of clients: 4 number of threads: 4 duration: 10s > number of transactions actually processed: 14563 > latency average = 2.749 ms > tps = 1454.899150 (including connections establishing) > tps = 1466.689412 (excluding connections establishing) > > > If this output doesn't bother people, then I suggest that this patch > should put the partition information in the line together with scaling > factor. >
IIUC, there are two things here (a) you seem to be fine displaying 'partitions' and 'partition method' information, (b) you would prefer to put it along with 'scaling factor' line. I personally prefer each parameter to be displayed in a separate line, but I am fine if more people would like to see the 'multiple parameters information in a single line'. I think it is better to that (point (b)) as a separate patch even if we agree on changing the display format. -- With Regards, Amit Kapila. EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
