Re: [PERFORM] pgbench to the MAXINT
| От | Gurjeet Singh |
|---|---|
| Тема | Re: [PERFORM] pgbench to the MAXINT |
| Дата | |
| Msg-id | CABwTF4WpWqYHWYU9TaRmefDYDBWxFjjNJ0TWadGzBAP-mGxuKw@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
| Ответ на | Re: [PERFORM] pgbench to the MAXINT (Satoshi Nagayasu <snaga@uptime.jp>) |
| Ответы |
Re: [PERFORM] pgbench to the MAXINT
|
| Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Sat, Jan 26, 2013 at 11:24 PM, Satoshi Nagayasu <snaga@uptime.jp> wrote:
Looks good to me. Thanks!
Hi,
I have reviewed this patch.
https://commitfest.postgresql.org/action/patch_view?id=1068
2012/12/21 Gurjeet Singh <singh.gurjeet@gmail.com>:> The patch is very much what you had posted, except for a couple ofI have tested this patch, and hvae confirmed that the columns
> differences due to bit-rot. (i) I didn't have to #define MAX_RANDOM_VALUE64
> since its cousin MAX_RANDOM_VALUE is not used by code anymore, and (ii) I
> used ternary operator in DDLs[] array to decide when to use bigint vs int
> columns.
>
> Please review.
>
> As for tests, I am currently running 'pgbench -i -s 21474' using
> unpatched pgbench, and am recording the time taken;Scale factor 21475 had
> actually failed to do anything meaningful using unpatched pgbench. Next I'll
> run with '-s 21475' on patched version to see if it does the right thing,
> and in acceptable time compared to '-s 21474'.
>
> What tests would you and others like to see, to get some confidence in
> the patch? The machine that I have access to has 62 GB RAM, 16-core
> 64-hw-threads, and about 900 GB of disk space.
for aid would be switched to using bigint, instead of int,
when the scalefactor >= 20,000.
(aid columns would exeed the upper bound of int when sf>21474.)
Also, I added a few fixes on it.
- Fixed to apply for the current git master.
- Fixed to surpress few more warnings about INT64_FORMAT.
- Minor improvement in the docs. (just my suggestion)
I attached the revised one.
Looks good to me. Thanks!
--
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: