Tatsuo Ishii wrote: > > > But one of the purposes of pgbench is examining performance on > > > different environments, doesn't it? I'm afraid hard coded > > > PREPARE/EXECUTE makes it harder. > > > > I was just thinking that pgbench is for measuring code changes, not for > > testing changes _in_ pgbench. Once we know the performance difference > > for PERFORM, would we still keep the code in pgbench? Maybe to test > > later, I guess. > > My concern is PREPARE/EXECUTE may NOT always improve the > performance. I guess we have very few data to judge PREPARE/EXECUTE is > good or not. Moreover PREPARE/EXECUTE might be improved in the > future. If that happens, keeping that switch would help examining the > effect, no?
It would. I was just concerned that having both in there would be a maintenance headache and would perhaps double the amount of code and make it complicated. Let see what the author does and we can decide then. -- Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us [EMAIL PROTECTED] | (610) 359-1001 + If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road + Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073 ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 6: Have you searched our list archives? http://archives.postgresql.org
