Re: pgbench throttling latency limit
От | Heikki Linnakangas |
---|---|
Тема | Re: pgbench throttling latency limit |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 54130559.9030602@vmware.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: pgbench throttling latency limit (Fabien COELHO <coelho@cri.ensmp.fr>) |
Ответы |
Re: pgbench throttling latency limit
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On 09/11/2014 03:36 PM, Fabien COELHO wrote: > > Hello Heikki, > >> Now that I've finished the detour and committed and backpatched the changes >> to the way latency is calculated, we can get back to this patch. It needs to >> be rebased. > > Before rebasing, I think that there are a few small problems with the > modification applied to switch from an integer range to double. > > (1) ISTM that the + 0.5 which remains in the PoissonRand computation comes > from the previous integer approach and is not needed here. If I'm not > mistaken the formula should be plain: > > -log(uniform) * center No. The +0.5 is to round the result to the nearest integer, instead of truncating it down. > (2) I'm not sure of the name "center", I think that "lambda" or > "mean" would be more appropriate. (shrug), I guess. The comment says that it's the value the average of a series values is centered on, so "center" doesn't seem too bad. I guess the mathematically accurate term would be "expected value". > (3) I wish that the maximum implied multiplier could be explicitely > documented in the source code. From pg_rand48 source code, I think > that it is 33.27106466687737 Oh, ok. That's an even smaller multiplier than I got just by feeding DBL_MIN to the formula. I don't think that's worth worrying about. That might change if the implementation of pg_erand48() is changed, so I'm a bit reluctant to state it explicitly. - Heikki
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: