Re: Asking for feedback on Pgperffarm

Hi, Mark, really thank you for your feedback.


On Mon, Aug 8, 2022 at 7:06 PM Mark Wong <markwkm@gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi Yedil,
>
> On Mon, Aug 08, 2022 at 02:50:17PM +0200, Yedil Serzhan wrote:
> > Dear hackers,
> >
> > I'm Yedil. I'm working on the project "Postgres Performance Farm" during
> > Gsoc. Pgperffarm is a project like Postgres build farm but focuses on the
> > performance of the database. Now it has 2 types of benchmarks, pgbench
> and
> > tpc-h. The website is online here <http://140.211.168.145/>, and the
> repo
> > is here <https://github.com/PGPerfFarm/pgperffarm_server>.
> >
> > I would like you to take a look at our website and, if possible, give
> some
> > feedback on, for example, what other data should be collected or what
> other
> > metrics could be used to compare performance.
>
> Nice work!
>
> We need to be careful with how results based on the TPC-H specification
> are presented.  It needs to be changed, but maybe not dramatically.
> Something like "Fair use derivation of TPC-H".  It needs to be clear
> that it's not an official TPC-H result.
>
> I think I've hinted at it in the #perffarm slack channel, that I think
> it would be better if you leveraged one of the already existing TPC-H
> derived kits.  While I'm partial to dbt-3, because I'm trying to
> maintain it and because it sounded like you were starting to do
> something similar to that, I think you can save a good amount of effort
> from reimplementing another kit from scratch.
>
> Regards,
> Mark
>


It makes sense to put it as a "fair use derivation of TPC-H". I also used
the term "composite score" because of your previous feedback on it.

I'll also check out the dbt-3 tool and if the effort is worth it, and if
it's necessary, I'll try to switch to it.

These are very valuable feedback, thank you again.

Best,
Yedil