On 3/4/18 04:09, Fabien COELHO wrote:
> So ISTM that the patch is dead because it is somehow necessarily
> imprecise. People will continue to do some wild guessing on how to
> translate scale to anything related to size.
I think so.
> Conclusion: mark the patch as rejected?
OK
--
Peter Eisen
Now the overhead is really 60-65%. Although the specification is unambiguous,
but we still need some maths to know whether it fits in buffers or memory...
The point of Karel regression is to take this into account.
Also, whether this option would be more admissible to Tom is still an open
quest
On 2/20/18 05:06, Fabien COELHO wrote:
>> Now the overhead is really 60-65%. Although the specification is
>> unambiguous,
>> but we still need some maths to know whether it fits in buffers or memory...
>> The point of Karel regression is to take this into account.
>>
>> Also, whether this optio
Now the overhead is really 60-65%. Although the specification is unambiguous,
but we still need some maths to know whether it fits in buffers or memory...
The point of Karel regression is to take this into account.
Also, whether this option would be more admissible to Tom is still an open
qu
Hello Mark,
What if we consider using ascii (utf8?) text file sizes as a reference
point, something independent from the database?
Why not.
TPC-B basically specifies that rows (accounts, tellers, branches) are all
padded to 100 bytes, thus we could consider (i.e. document) that
--scale=SIZ
On Sat, Feb 17, 2018 at 12:22:37PM -0500, Alvaro Hernandez wrote:
>
>
> On 17/02/18 12:17, Tom Lane wrote:
> > Alvaro Hernandez writes:
> >> On 17/02/18 11:26, Tom Lane wrote:
> >>> Fabien COELHO writes:
> Here is a attempt at extending --scale so that it can be given a size.
> >>> I do no
Hello Alvaro & Tom,
Why not then insert a "few" rows, measure size, truncate the table,
compute the formula and then insert to the desired user requested
size? (or insert what should be the minimum, scale 1, measure, and
extrapolate what's missing). It doesn't sound too complicated to me,
an
On 17/02/18 12:37, Fabien COELHO wrote:
Why not then insert a "few" rows, measure size, truncate the
table, compute the formula and then insert to the desired user
requested size? (or insert what should be the minimum, scale 1,
measure, and extrapolate what's missing). It doesn't sound
Why not then insert a "few" rows, measure size, truncate the table,
compute the formula and then insert to the desired user requested size? (or
insert what should be the minimum, scale 1, measure, and extrapolate what's
missing). It doesn't sound too complicated to me, and targeting a size
Hello Tom,
Here is a attempt at extending --scale so that it can be given a size.
I do not actually find this to be a good idea. It's going to be
platform-dependent, or not very accurate, or both, and thereby
contribute to confusion by making results less reproducible.
I have often wanted
On 17/02/18 12:17, Tom Lane wrote:
Alvaro Hernandez writes:
On 17/02/18 11:26, Tom Lane wrote:
Fabien COELHO writes:
Here is a attempt at extending --scale so that it can be given a size.
I do not actually find this to be a good idea. It's going to be
platform-dependent, or not very accu
Alvaro Hernandez writes:
> On 17/02/18 11:26, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Fabien COELHO writes:
>>> Here is a attempt at extending --scale so that it can be given a size.
>> I do not actually find this to be a good idea. It's going to be
>> platform-dependent, or not very accurate, or both, and thereby
On 17/02/18 11:26, Tom Lane wrote:
Fabien COELHO writes:
Here is a attempt at extending --scale so that it can be given a size.
I do not actually find this to be a good idea. It's going to be
platform-dependent, or not very accurate, or both, and thereby
contribute to confusion by making re
Fabien COELHO writes:
> Here is a attempt at extending --scale so that it can be given a size.
I do not actually find this to be a good idea. It's going to be
platform-dependent, or not very accurate, or both, and thereby
contribute to confusion by making results less reproducible.
Plus, what d
Seem a nice addition but something isn't quite right; with '-s 50' (no unit)
I get: 'scale 50 too small':
Sigh. Indeed, it seems that I forgot to test some cases... Thanks
for the debug. Here is an hopefully better attempt.
I also upgraded the regression test to test more that "-s 1". I als
On 2018-02-17 10:20, Fabien COELHO wrote:
After Karel Moppel piece on pgbench scale/size conversion, it occured
to me that having this as an option would be nice.
https://www.cybertec-postgresql.com/en/a-formula-to-calculate-pgbench-scaling-factor-for-target-db-size/
Here is a attempt at extend
After Karel Moppel piece on pgbench scale/size conversion, it occured to
me that having this as an option would be nice.
https://www.cybertec-postgresql.com/en/a-formula-to-calculate-pgbench-scaling-factor-for-target-db-size/
Here is a attempt at extending --scale so that it can be given a si
17 matches
Mail list logo
