Date: Tue, 21 Jul 2015 18:29:55 +0200 (CEST)
From: Fabien COELHO <coelho@cri.ensmp.fr>
To: Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>
cc: PostgreSQL Developers <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: pgbench stats per script & other stuff
In-Reply-To: 
 <CA+TgmoYQi7sPG+b_19Y4bn2wUPUujsSZ_qOF8nWZTrC1Pbqivg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.10.1507211819460.30948@sto>
References: <alpine.DEB.2.10.1507171544450.26125@sto>
 <CA+Tgmoa=ud6E=4afK3srNj_4j8Cckm4OD_=0=uxSD5JVwsO4rQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <alpine.DEB.2.10.1507211626000.30948@sto>
 <CA+TgmoYQi7sPG+b_19Y4bn2wUPUujsSZ_qOF8nWZTrC1Pbqivg@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: Alpine 2.10 (DEB 1266 2009-07-14)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed
Precedence: bulk
Sender: pgsql-hackers-owner@postgresql.org

5~5~5~
>>> That is a truly horrifying abuse of command-line arguments.  -1 from
>>> me, or minus more than one if I've got that many chits to burn.
>>
>> Are you against the -w, or against saying that pgbench execute scripts,
>> whether internal or from files?
>
> I'm against the idea that we accept multiple arguments for scripts,

Pgbench *currently* already accept multiple "-f ..." options, and this is 
a good thing to test realistic loads which may intermix several kind of 
transactions, say a lot of readonly and some update or insert, and very 
rare deletes...

Now if you do not need it you do not use it, and all is fine. Once you 
have several scripts, being able to "weight" them becomes useful for 
realism.

> and that a subsequent -w modifies the meaning of the script-specifiying 
> argument already read. That strikes me as a very unintuitive interface.

Ok, I understand this "afterward modification" objection.

What if the -w would be required *before*, and supply a weight for (the 
first/maybe all) script(s) specified *afterwards*, so it does not modify 
something already provided? I think it would be more intuitive, or at 
least less surprising.

> I'm not sure exactly what would be better at the moment, but I think we 
> need something better.

Maybe -f file.sql:weight (yuk from my point of view, but it can be 
done easily).

-- 
Fabien.


-- 
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers