| From: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka(at)iki(dot)fi> |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Grouping isolationtester tests in the schedule |
| Date: | 2019-08-07 16:43:50 |
| Message-ID: | 20190807164350.GA29172@alvherre.pgsql |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 2019-Aug-07, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> The elephant in the room is the 'timeouts' test, which takes about 40
> seconds, out of a total runtime of 90 seconds. So we'd really want to run
> that in parallel with everything else. Or split 'timeouts' into multiple
> tests that could run in parallel.
Hmm, that test has 8 permutations, five second each ... if we split it
in 3 and run those in parallel, we reduce the total isolation runtime
by 25 seconds even if we do *nothing else at all*. If we tweak the
other things, I think we could make the whole set run in about 30
seconds total in a normal machine.
Splitting the test never crossed my mind.
--
Álvaro Herrera https://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2019-08-07 16:44:13 | Re: no default hash partition |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2019-08-07 16:39:49 | Re: is necessary to recheck cached data in fn_extra? |