From: | Joe Van Dyk <joe(at)tanga(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Steve Crawford <scrawford(at)pinpointresearch(dot)com> |
Cc: | Perry Smith <pedzsan(at)gmail(dot)com>, "<pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org>" <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Testing Technique when using a DB |
Date: | 2013-03-13 16:03:56 |
Message-ID: | CACfv+pLTeNwhfC--NW_B1fGx8eBnH74PVXT3tAMwjNfc7yfVKw@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general |
On Wed, Mar 13, 2013 at 8:47 AM, Steve Crawford <
scrawford(at)pinpointresearch(dot)com> wrote:
> On 03/12/2013 09:05 PM, Perry Smith wrote:
>
>> To all who replied:
>>
>> Thank you. ...
>>
>>
>> I had not seriously considered pg_dump / pg_restore because I assumed it
>> would be fairly slow but I will experiment with pg_restore and template
>> techniques this weekend and see which ones prove viable.
>>
>
> Another possibility a bit outside my area of expertise but what about a VM
> image configured to your needs that you just spin up as needed then discard
> when done (i.e. always spinning up the same starting image)?
>
>
I'd guess the OP is running hundreds of tests, where the data needs to be
reverted/reset after each test, and each individual test might run in, say,
0.1 seconds. This is a really common technique when testing web apps. I
don't think you'd want to start a VM for each of these tests, especially
when the tests are small and specific.
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | David Ratcliff | 2013-03-13 16:07:09 | Breaking news |
Previous Message | Steve Crawford | 2013-03-13 15:47:00 | Re: Testing Technique when using a DB |