I wrote:
> I was depressed, though not entirely surprised, to find that you get
> exactly that same line-count coverage if the table size is cut back
> to ONE row.
Oh, I found the flaw in my testing: there are two INSERTs in the test
script and I was changing only one of them. After correcting that,
the results behave a little more sanely:
Line Coverage Functions
1 row: 70.4 % 349 / 496 93.1 % 27 / 29
10 row: 73.6 % 365 / 496 93.1 % 27 / 29
100 rows: 73.6 % 365 / 496 93.1 % 27 / 29
1000 rows: 75.4 % 374 / 496 93.1 % 27 / 29
Still, we've reached the most coverage this test can give us at 1000
rows, which still means it's wasting the last 99% of its runtime.
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
