Hi Doug,
On 3/1/18 3:57 AM, Andres Freund wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On 2018-02-21 17:58:49 +, Rady, Doug wrote:
>> - move the time measure in the initialization loop, instead of doing it
>> in each function, so that it is done just in one place.
>>
>> I will do this.
>
> Given the last v11
Hi,
On 2018-02-21 17:58:49 +, Rady, Doug wrote:
> - move the time measure in the initialization loop, instead of doing it
> in each function, so that it is done just in one place.
>
> I will do this.
Given the last v11 CF is just about to start, there's no new version
yet, the patc
Hello Doug,
Doing the "in progress" way suffers from everything before 'generating
data' possibly scrolling off the screen/window.
Yeah, that is a point.
I tend to "| less" when I want to see a long output in details, so it is
not an issue for me.
Also, I like to have an information when
On 1/29/18, 23:52, "Fabien COELHO" wrote:
Hello Doug,
Hi Fabien,
> With patch and ‘-I dtgvpf’ options:
> pgrun pgbench -i -s 2000 -F 90 -q -I dtgvpf
> dropping old tables...
> creating tables...
> generating data...
> …
> 2 of 2 tuples (1
Hello Doug,
With patch and ‘-I dtgvpf’ options:
pgrun pgbench -i -s 2000 -F 90 -q -I dtgvpf
dropping old tables...
creating tables...
generating data...
…
2 of 2 tuples (100%) done (elapsed 168.76 s, remaining 0.00 s)
vacuuming...
creating primary keys...
creating foreign keys..
On Tue, Sep 26, 2017 at 3:07 AM, Fabien COELHO wrote:
>
> Hello Doug,
>
>> total time: 316.03 s (insert 161.60 s, commit 0.64 s, vacuum 60.77 s,
>> index 93.01 s)
>
>
> Definitely interesting.
>
> There is a "ready for committers" patch in the CF which extensively rework
> the initialization: it b
