On Wed, Mar 6, 2024 at 12:59 PM John Naylor <johncnaylo...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Tue, Mar 5, 2024 at 11:12 PM Masahiko Sawada <sawada.m...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Tue, Mar 5, 2024 at 6:41 PM John Naylor <johncnaylo...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > Done in v66-0009. I'd be curious to hear any feedback. I like the > > > aspect that the random numbers come from a different seed every time > > > the test runs. > > > > The new tests look good. Here are some comments: > > > > --- > > + expected = keys[i]; > > + iterval = rt_iterate_next(iter, &iterkey); > > > > - ndeleted++; > > + EXPECT_TRUE(iterval != NULL); > > + EXPECT_EQ_U64(iterkey, expected); > > + EXPECT_EQ_U64(*iterval, expected); > > > > Can we verify that the iteration returns keys in ascending order? > > We get the "expected" value from the keys we saved in the now-sorted > array, so we do already. Unless I misunderstand you.
Ah, you're right. Please ignore this comment. > > > --- > > radixtree_ctx = AllocSetContextCreate(CurrentMemoryContext, > > "test_radix_tree", > > ALLOCSET_DEFAULT_SIZES); > > > > We use a mix of ALLOCSET_DEFAULT_SIZES and ALLOCSET_SMALL_SIZES. I > > think it's better to use either one for consistency. > > Will change to "small", since 32-bit platforms will use slab for leaves. Agreed. > > I'll look at the memory usage and estimate what 32-bit platforms will > use, and maybe adjust the number of keys. A few megabytes is fine, but > not many megabytes. Thanks, sounds good. Regards, -- Masahiko Sawada Amazon Web Services: https://aws.amazon.com
