From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>
Cc: Fabien COELHO <coelho@cri.ensmp.fr>
Cc: Steve Singer <steve@ssinger.info>
Cc: PostgreSQL Developers <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] pgbench regression test failure
Date: Tue, 21 Nov 2017 15:28:34 -0500
Message-ID: <19483.1511296114@sss.pgh.pa.us> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CA+TgmoZ8kbPuPC5ERSC8yqtVNoAp_WgpdDtUEvXLnHB3-CoisA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <26654.1505232433@sss.pgh.pa.us>
<alpine.DEB.2.20.1709240820160.4999@lancre>
<20171112024739.23750.54311.pgcf@coridan.postgresql.org>
<alpine.DEB.2.20.1711131918090.18461@lancre>
<28977.1511125910@sss.pgh.pa.us>
<alpine.DEB.2.20.1711200703240.11926@lancre>
<19670.1511203257@sss.pgh.pa.us>
<CA+TgmoZ8kbPuPC5ERSC8yqtVNoAp_WgpdDtUEvXLnHB3-CoisA@mail.gmail.com>
Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> writes:
> On Mon, Nov 20, 2017 at 1:40 PM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>> I dunno, it just looks odd to me that when we've set up a test case in
>> which every one of the transactions is guaranteed to exceed the latency
>> limit, that it doesn't say that they all did. I don't particularly buy
>> your assumption that the percentages should sum. Anybody else have an
>> opinion there?
> I agree with you, but I don't think either approach is free from
> possible confusion. I think it would help to show the numerator and
> the denominator explicitly, e.g.:
> number of clients: 1
> number of threads: 1
> number of transactions per client: 100
> number of transactions actually processed: 33/100
> number of transactions skipped: 67 (67.000 %)
> number of transactions above the 1.0 ms latency limit: 33 (33 of 33, 100.000 %)
> (My proposed change is in the last line.)
Seems like a good idea, but the way you've written it is inconsistent
with the "n/m" notation used just above. I'd suggest
... latency limit: 33 (33/33, 100.000 %)
or just
... latency limit: 33/33 (100.000 %)
regards, tom lane
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Reply to all the recipients using the --to and --cc options:
reply via email
To: pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
Cc: tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us, robertmhaas@gmail.com, coelho@cri.ensmp.fr, steve@ssinger.info
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] pgbench regression test failure
In-Reply-To: <19483.1511296114@sss.pgh.pa.us>
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
This inbox is served by DDX for PostgreSQL; see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox