From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Kevin Grittner <kgrittn(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org |
Subject: | How huge does mvtest_huge need to be? |
Date: | 2017-05-03 17:08:40 |
Message-ID: | 32386.1493831320@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Continuing to investigate possible speedups of the regression tests,
I noticed that some of the slower individual statements are those
dealing with mvtest_huge and mvtest_hugeview in matview.sql.
Cutting the size of mvtest_huge from 100K rows to 10K rows is enough
to halve the overall runtime of matview.sql, at least on the relatively
slow buildfarm animal I was checking this on.
I was going to propose doing that, but then looking at commit b69ec7cc9
which introduced these tables, I began to wonder why they're large at all.
Even a one-row matview would have been enough to test for the bug that
that commit fixed.
So ... is there a good reason to be using a large table here, and
if so what is it, and how big does the table really need to be
to provide useful test coverage?
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Adrian Klaver | 2017-05-03 17:10:44 | Re: Column rename in an extension update script |
Previous Message | Pavel Stehule | 2017-05-03 16:58:49 | Re: CTE inlining |