Re: pgbench - add pseudo-random permutation function
Dean Rasheed <dean.a.rasheed@gmail.com>
From: Dean Rasheed <dean.a.rasheed@gmail.com>
To: Fabien COELHO <coelho@cri.ensmp.fr>
Cc: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com>,
Thomas Munro <thomas.munro@gmail.com>, David Steele <david@pgmasters.net>,
Peter Eisentraut <peter.eisentraut@2ndquadrant.com>, Tomas Vondra <tomas.vondra@2ndquadrant.com>,
Hironobu SUZUKI <hironobu@interdb.jp>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org>
Date: 2021-03-30T19:44:05Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers
Commits
Same data as JSON:
GET /api/v1/messages/:b64id/commits
the thread's linked commits as JSON, with link sources.
API reference →
-
pgbench: Function to generate random permutations.
- 6b258e3d688d 14.0 landed
-
Add basic support for using the POPCNT and SSE4.2s LZCNT opcodes
- 711bab1e4d19 12.0 cited
-
Further improve code for probing the availability of ARM CRC instructions.
- a7a7387575b8 11.0 cited
On Tue, 30 Mar 2021 at 20:31, Dean Rasheed <dean.a.rasheed@gmail.com> wrote: > > Yeah, that's probably a fair point. However, all the existing pgbench > random functions are using it, so I think it's fair enough for > permute() to do the same (and actually 2^48 is pretty huge). Switching > to a 64-bit PRNG might not be a bad idea, but I think that's something > we'd want to do across the board, and so I think it should be out of > scope for this patch. > Of course the immediate counter-argument to changing the existing random functions would be that doing so would break lots of people's tests, and no one would thank us for that. Still, I think that, since the existing random functions use a 48-bit PRNG, it's not unreasonable for permute() to do the same. Regards, Dean