|
|
|
|
|
by menaerus
827 days ago
|
|
> I'm guessing that this discussion would be more productive if you would please say who you are and the company you work for. I'm Brendan Gregg, I work for Intel, and I'm well known in the performance space. Who are you? Wow, just wow. How ridiculous this is? > Your position is also completely untenable: this benchmark was obsoleted by its creators 29 years ago, who very clearly say it is obsolete, and you're arguing that it isn't because it "still runs." My only position in the whole thread was "1% of overhead cannot be universally claimed" and I still stand by it 100%. pgbench experiment from Linux kernel folks was just one of the counter-examples that can be found in the wild that goes against your claim. And which you first disputed by saying that it is a micro-benchmark (meaning that you have no idea what it is) and now you're disputing it by saying it's obsolete (yes, but still very relevant in database development, used in the Linux kernel and not the slightest technical reasoning after all). Personally, I couldn't care less about this but if names is what you're after, you're not disagreeing with me but with the methodology and results presented by Mel Gorman, Linux kernel developer. |
|
You are backing away from your other positions, for example:
> I fail to understand the reasoning of it "being simple" or "microbenchmarkey". It's far from the truth I think.
Do you now agree that TPC-B is too simple and microbenchmarky? And if not, please tell me (as I'm working on the problem of industry benchmarking in general) what would it take to convince someone like you to stop elevating obsoleted benchmarks like TPC-B? Is there anything?