From: Stephen Frost <sfrost@snowman.net>
To: Greg Smith <greg@2ndquadrant.com>
Cc: Euler Taveira de Oliveira <euler@timbira.com>
Cc: Pgsql Hackers <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: [PERFORM] pgbench to the MAXINT
Date: Wed, 9 Feb 2011 14:40:08 -0500
Message-ID: <20110209194008.GX4116@tamriel.snowman.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <4D525281.1000201@2ndquadrant.com>
References: <4D27C4E5.5000609@2ndquadrant.com>
<4D2A965A.3000603@timbira.com>
<4D2AC273.3010709@2ndquadrant.com>
<4D2CCCD9.802@timbira.com>
<4D35DF33.6060901@2ndquadrant.com>
<4D5017DE.90404@2ndquadrant.com>
<4D525281.1000201@2ndquadrant.com>
Greg,
* Greg Smith (greg@2ndquadrant.com) wrote:
> I took that complexity out and just put a hard line
> in there instead: if scale>=20000, you get bigints. That's not
> very different from the real limit, and it made documenting when the
> switch happens easy to write and to remember.
Agreed completely on this.
> It turns out that even though I've been running an i386 Linux on
> here, it's actually a 64-bit CPU. (I think that it has a 32-bit
> install may be an artifact of Adobe Flash install issues, sadly) So
> this may not be as good of a test case as I'd hoped.
Actually, I would think it'd still be sufficient.. If you're under a
32bit kernel you're not going to be using the extended registers, etc,
that would be available under a 64bit kernel.. That said, the idea that
we should care about 32-bit systems these days, in a benchmarking tool,
is, well, silly, imv.
> 1) A look into the expected range of the rand() function suggests
> the glibc implementation normally proves 30 bits of resolution, so
> about 1 billion numbers. You'll have >1B rows in a pgbench database
> once the scale goes over 10,000. So without a major overhaul of how
> random number generation is treated here, people can expect the
> distribution of rows touched by a test run to get less even once the
> database scale gets very large.
Just wondering, did you consider just calling random() twice and
smashing the result together..?
> I added another warning paragraph
> to the end of the docs in this update to mention this. Long-term, I
> suspect we may need to adopt a superior 64-bit RNG approach,
> something like a Mersenne Twister perhaps. That's a bit more than
> can be chewed on during 9.1 development though.
I tend to agree that we should be able to improve the random number
generation in the future. Additionally, imv, we should be able to say
"pg_bench version X isn't comparable to version Y" in the release notes
or something, or have seperate version #s for it which make it clear
what can be compared to each other and what can't. Painting ourselves
into a corner by saying we can't ever make pgbench generate results that
can't be compared to every other released version of pgbench just isn't
practical.
> 2) I'd rate odds are good there's one or more corner-case bugs in
> \setrandom or \setshell I haven't found yet, just from the way that
> code was converted. Those have some changes I haven't specifically
> tested exhaustively yet. I don't see any issues when running the
> most common two pgbench tests, but that's doesn't mean every part of
> that 32 -> 64 bit conversion was done correctly.
I'll take a look. :)
Thanks,
Stephen
Attachments:
signature.asc (application/pgp-signature, 197B) download
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-performance@postgresql.org
Cc: sfrost@snowman.net, greg@2ndquadrant.com, euler@timbira.com, pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: [PERFORM] pgbench to the MAXINT
In-Reply-To: <20110209194008.GX4116@tamriel.snowman.net>
* 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