Date: Tue, 15 Aug 2023 09:46:59 +0200 (CEST)
From: Fabien COELHO <coelho@cri.ensmp.fr>
To: Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart@gmail.com>
cc: Hannu Krosing <hannuk@google.com>, 
    pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>, 
    Dimitri Fontaine <dim@tapoueh.org>
Subject: Re: pgbench - adding pl/pgsql versions of tests
In-Reply-To: <20230814150737.GA1395427@nathanxps13>
Message-ID: <d01513e9-8c19-da5-fabc-845f75377f52@mines-paristech.fr>
References: <CAMT0RQR1TNSnSWwd65is=HCDjiP4i25mcDDoctEBEiV8351cMQ@mail.gmail.com> <20230814150737.GA1395427@nathanxps13>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed
Archived-At: <https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/d01513e9-8c19-da5-fabc-845f75377f52%40mines-paristech.fr>
Precedence: bulk


Hello Nathan,

>> 1. so I don't have to create the script and function manually each
>> time I want to test mainly the database (instead of the
>> client-database system)
>>
>> 2. so that new users of PostgreSQL can easily see how much better OLTP
>> workloads perform when packaged up as a server-side function
>
> I'm not sure we should add micro-optimized versions of the existing scripts
> to pgbench.  Your point about demonstrating the benefits of server-side
> functions seems reasonable, but it also feels a bit like artifically
> improving pgbench numbers.  I think I'd rather see some more variety in the
> built-in scripts so that folks can more easily test a wider range of common
> workloads.  Perhaps this could include a test that is focused on
> server-side functions.

ISTM that your argument suggests to keep the tpcb-like PL/pgSQL version.
It is the more beneficial anyway as it merges 4/5 commands in one call, so 
it demonstrate the effect of investing in this kind of approach.

I'm unclear about what variety of scripts that could be provided given the 
tables made available with pgbench. ISTM that other scenari would involve 
both an initialization and associated scripts, and any proposal would be 
bared because it would open the door to anything.

> In any case, it looks like there is unaddressed feedback for this patch, so
> I'm marking it as "waiting on author."

Indeed.

-- 
Fabien.