I *finally* looked at the Jira and lo! you specifically identified the check method.... Someday I'll learn to look first, *then* explore. Siiigghhh.
Anyway, looking at things a bit more, I'm more confident that TestCustomScoreQuery wouldn't lose anything by moving the query check outside of the loop. The queries don't change and we're not re-querying.... TestBooleanShouldMatch is trickier. It produces 1,000 queries that have widely varying forms. I don't see a clean way to test one of each "form". We could decide that, say, the first 50 were enough. Or we shouldn't be running check on randomly- generated queries. Or if we find a query that's actually a bug we should test for it explicitly. Or... But I'm not comfortable changing the check in the random test without some consensus. I'll give folks a chance to chime in between now and Monday and generate a patch for one or both depending on the response. Erick On Thu, Oct 29, 2009 at 3:12 PM, Mark Miller <markrmil...@gmail.com> wrote: > +1 - I made a similar observation a while back and started an issue to > address Junit test speeds: > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-1844 > > Erick Erickson wrote: > > OK, I'm actually getting of my duff and trying to do something. And > > I'm off today feeling ill, so I have a bit of time. So the rational > > place to start is to get all the code and run the unit tests, and I've > > even got them running in IntelliJ as well as the ant task. Will > > wonders never cease. > > > > The unit tests in TestCustomScoreQuery take on the order of 80 seconds > > on my machine. Before I go off the deep end I wanted to run what I've > > found past y'all to see if it makes sense. > > > > Virtually all the time is taken up in the method logResult on the call > > to QueryUtils.check(q, s). But the logResult method is called from > > verifyResults method in a loop like: > > > > for (Iterator it = h1.keySet().iterator(); it.hasNext();) { > > call logResult for 5 different queries. > > } > > But the queries don't change that I can see... > > > > Why couldn't we just call QueryUtils.check once for each of the 5 > > queries outside the for loop? Doing so reduces the time it takes for > > the test from ~80 seconds to 9 seconds. > > > > If there're no objections, I'll make a patch. Which folks will > > probably have to be patient with me since it'll be the first one I've > > produced for this project..... > > > > While I'm at it, what are we thinking about using JUnit4? Looking > > *briefly* at the code, this actually seems like it'd be difficult. > > We'd have to deal with the LuceneTestCase superclass... > > > > Best > > Erick > > > -- > - Mark > > http://www.lucidimagination.com > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-h...@lucene.apache.org > >
