From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Kevin Grittner <kgrittn@gmail.com>
Cc: pgsql-hackers@postgreSQL.org
Subject: How huge does mvtest_huge need to be?
Date: Wed, 03 May 2017 13:08:40 -0400
Message-ID: <32386.1493831320@sss.pgh.pa.us> (raw)
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:majordomo@postgresql.org?body=unsub%20pgsql-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
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Reply to all the recipients using the --to and --cc options:
reply via email
To: pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
Cc: tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us, kgrittn@gmail.com
Subject: Re: How huge does mvtest_huge need to be?
In-Reply-To: <32386.1493831320@sss.pgh.pa.us>
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
This inbox is served by DDX for PostgreSQL; see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox