Обсуждение: BUG #3681: fillers are NULL in pgbench

The following bug has been logged online:

Bug reference:      3681
Logged by:          ITAGAKI Takahiro
Email address:      itagaki.takahiro@oss.ntt.co.jp
PostgreSQL version: 8.2.5, 8.3beta1
Operating system:   independent
Description:        fillers are NULL in pgbench
Details:

All of filler fields in branches, tellers and history is NULL. It is
probabbly a mistake because there are fields of char(22-88) in the table
definitions.

TPC-B requires at least 100 bytes per row for all tables used in it.

"ITAGAKI Takahiro" <itagaki.takahiro@oss.ntt.co.jp> writes:
> All of filler fields in branches, tellers and history is NULL. It is
> probabbly a mistake because there are fields of char(22-88) in the table
> definitions.
> TPC-B requires at least 100 bytes per row for all tables used in it.

I'm not in favor of changing this.  pgbench has never pretended to be
"really" TPC-B, nor has anyone ever tried to compare its numbers against
other TPC-B numbers.  On the other hand, people *do* compare pgbench
numbers to itself over time, and if we make a change like this it will
break comparability of the results.

            regards, tom lane

Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:

> "ITAGAKI Takahiro" <itagaki.takahiro@oss.ntt.co.jp> writes:
> > All of filler fields in branches, tellers and history is NULL. It is
> > probabbly a mistake because there are fields of char(22-88) in the table
> > definitions.
> > TPC-B requires at least 100 bytes per row for all tables used in it.
>
> I'm not in favor of changing this.  pgbench has never pretended to be
> "really" TPC-B, nor has anyone ever tried to compare its numbers against
> other TPC-B numbers.  On the other hand, people *do* compare pgbench
> numbers to itself over time, and if we make a change like this it will
> break comparability of the results.

Ok, I feel it reasonable.
The attached is a patch to mention it in the source code.

Regards,
---
ITAGAKI Takahiro
NTT Open Source Software Center

This has been saved for the 8.4 release:

    http://momjian.postgresql.org/cgi-bin/pgpatches_hold

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

ITAGAKI Takahiro wrote:
>
> Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>
> > "ITAGAKI Takahiro" <itagaki.takahiro@oss.ntt.co.jp> writes:
> > > All of filler fields in branches, tellers and history is NULL. It is
> > > probabbly a mistake because there are fields of char(22-88) in the table
> > > definitions.
> > > TPC-B requires at least 100 bytes per row for all tables used in it.
> >
> > I'm not in favor of changing this.  pgbench has never pretended to be
> > "really" TPC-B, nor has anyone ever tried to compare its numbers against
> > other TPC-B numbers.  On the other hand, people *do* compare pgbench
> > numbers to itself over time, and if we make a change like this it will
> > break comparability of the results.
>
> Ok, I feel it reasonable.
> The attached is a patch to mention it in the source code.
>
> Regards,
> ---
> ITAGAKI Takahiro
> NTT Open Source Software Center
>

[ Attachment, skipping... ]

>
> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 2: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster

--
  Bruce Momjian  <bruce@momjian.us>        http://momjian.us
  EnterpriseDB                             http://postgres.enterprisedb.com

  + If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +

This was applied by Tom.  Thanks.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

ITAGAKI Takahiro wrote:
>
> Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>
> > "ITAGAKI Takahiro" <itagaki.takahiro@oss.ntt.co.jp> writes:
> > > All of filler fields in branches, tellers and history is NULL. It is
> > > probabbly a mistake because there are fields of char(22-88) in the table
> > > definitions.
> > > TPC-B requires at least 100 bytes per row for all tables used in it.
> >
> > I'm not in favor of changing this.  pgbench has never pretended to be
> > "really" TPC-B, nor has anyone ever tried to compare its numbers against
> > other TPC-B numbers.  On the other hand, people *do* compare pgbench
> > numbers to itself over time, and if we make a change like this it will
> > break comparability of the results.
>
> Ok, I feel it reasonable.
> The attached is a patch to mention it in the source code.
>
> Regards,
> ---
> ITAGAKI Takahiro
> NTT Open Source Software Center
>

[ Attachment, skipping... ]

>
> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 2: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster

--
  Bruce Momjian  <bruce@momjian.us>        http://momjian.us
  EnterpriseDB                             http://postgres.enterprisedb.com

  + If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +