Hi!
On Fri, Nov 10, 2017 at 9:12 PM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> I wrote:
> > Is there anything we can do to cut the runtime of the TAP test to
> > the point where running it by default wouldn't be so painful?
>
> As an experiment, I tried simply cutting the size of the test table 10X:
>
> diff --git a/contrib/bloom/t/001_wal.pl b/contrib/bloom/t/001_wal.pl
> index 1b319c9..566abf9 100644
> --- a/contrib/bloom/t/001_wal.pl
> +++ b/contrib/bloom/t/001_wal.pl
> @@ -57,7 +57,7 @@ $node_standby->start;
> $node_master->safe_psql("postgres", "CREATE EXTENSION bloom;");
> $node_master->safe_psql("postgres", "CREATE TABLE tst (i int4, t
> text);");
> $node_master->safe_psql("postgres",
> -"INSERT INTO tst SELECT i%10, substr(md5(i::text), 1, 1) FROM
> generate_series(1,100000) i;"
> +"INSERT INTO tst SELECT i%10, substr(md5(i::text), 1, 1) FROM
> generate_series(1,10000) i;"
> );
> $node_master->safe_psql("postgres",
> "CREATE INDEX bloomidx ON tst USING bloom (i, t) WITH (col1 =
> 3);");
> @@ -72,7 +72,7 @@ for my $i (1 .. 10)
> test_index_replay("delete $i");
> $node_master->safe_psql("postgres", "VACUUM tst;");
> test_index_replay("vacuum $i");
> - my ($start, $end) = (100001 + ($i - 1) * 10000, 100000 + $i *
> 10000);
> + my ($start, $end) = (10001 + ($i - 1) * 1000, 10000 + $i * 1000);
> $node_master->safe_psql("postgres",
> "INSERT INTO tst SELECT i%10, substr(md5(i::text), 1, 1) FROM
> generate_series($start,$end) i;"
> );
>
> This about halved the runtime of the TAP test, and it changed the coverage
> footprint not at all according to lcov. (Said coverage is only marginally
> better than what we get without running the bloom TAP test, AFAICT.)
>
> It seems like some effort could be put into both shortening this test
> and improving the amount of code it exercises.
>
Thank you for committing patch which fixes tap test.
I'll try to improve coverage of this test and reduce its run time.
------
Alexander Korotkov
Postgres Professional: http://www.postgrespro.com
The Russian Postgres Company
