You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
The commented-out section that comes below inserts to the order line table, which is required by TPCC. Is it a bug?
It also appears to me that the benchmarks in DBx1000 don't exercise insert_row() in any index structures, but the indexes themselves seem functional. Is this intended?
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
We disabled inserts in TPC-C in order to keep the memory footprint low. We found that with inserts, the program can quickly run out of memory. Disabling inserts is ok for us since inserts were not the main focus of our previous research. If you want to study performance for indexes, you should uncomment those lines. The hash index should work properly with inserts/deletes. We haven't tested the B-tree index for a while; so be careful with B-tree since there might be bugs.
Hi, I'm looking at DBx1000's implementation of "new order" transactions in TPCC, and came across the following line:
DBx1000/benchmarks/tpcc_txn.cpp
Line 424 in fda3950
The commented-out section that comes below inserts to the order line table, which is required by TPCC. Is it a bug?
It also appears to me that the benchmarks in DBx1000 don't exercise
insert_row()
in any index structures, but the indexes themselves seem functional. Is this intended?The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: