Re: [HACKERS] "Some tests to cover hash_index"

On Wed, Oct 12, 2016 at 1:17 AM, Mithun Cy wrote: > On Wed, Sep 28, 2016 at 9:56 PM, Robert Haas wrote: >> something committable will come from it, but with 2 days left it's not >> going to happen this CF. > Adding a new patch. This one uses

Re: [HACKERS] "Some tests to cover hash_index"

On Wed, Sep 28, 2016 at 9:56 PM, Robert Haas wrote: > something committable will come from it, but with 2 days left it's not > going to happen this CF. Adding a new patch. This one uses generate series instead of INSERT INTO SELECT and fixed comments from Alvaro. --

Re: [HACKERS] "Some tests to cover hash_index"

On Tue, Sep 20, 2016 at 2:26 PM, Alvaro Herrera wrote: > Why not use generate_series() queries to insert the appropriate number > of tuples, instead of a handful of INSERT lines each time? Since each > insert is a separate transaction, that would probably be faster. > >

Re: [HACKERS] "Some tests to cover hash_index"

Why not use generate_series() queries to insert the appropriate number of tuples, instead of a handful of INSERT lines each time? Since each insert is a separate transaction, that would probably be faster. Why do you have a plpgsql function just to create a cursor? Wouldn't it be simpler to

Re: [HACKERS] "Some tests to cover hash_index"

On Tue, Sep 20, 2016 at 8:52 AM, Amit Kapila wrote: > I think you have a point, but not sure if it is worth to add a > separate file. It might be tricky to choose which file to add new > tests for hash_indexes. Anybody else have opinion on this point? I think all the

Re: [HACKERS] "Some tests to cover hash_index"

On Mon, Sep 19, 2016 at 8:44 PM, Mithun Cy wrote: > On Sat, Aug 6, 2016 at 9:41 AM, Amit Kapila wrote: >> I wonder why you have included a new file for these tests, why can't be >> these added to existing hash_index.sql. > tests in

Re: [HACKERS] "Some tests to cover hash_index"

On Sat, Aug 6, 2016 at 9:41 AM, Amit Kapila wrote: > I wonder why you have included a new file for these tests, why can't be these added to existing hash_index.sql. tests in hash_index.sql did not cover overflow pages, above tests were for mainly for them. So I thought

Re: [HACKERS] "Some tests to cover hash_index"

On Wed, Aug 24, 2016 at 2:34 AM, Amit Kapila wrote: > On Wed, Aug 24, 2016 at 11:38 AM, Ashutosh Sharma > wrote: >>> Well, that change should be part of Amit's patch to add WAL logging, >>> not this patch, whose mission is just to improve test

Re: [HACKERS] "Some tests to cover hash_index"

On Wed, Aug 24, 2016 at 11:38 AM, Ashutosh Sharma wrote: > Hi, > >> Well, that change should be part of Amit's patch to add WAL logging, >> not this patch, whose mission is just to improve test coverage. > > I have just removed the warning message from expected output file

Re: [HACKERS] "Some tests to cover hash_index"

Hi, > Well, that change should be part of Amit's patch to add WAL logging, > not this patch, whose mission is just to improve test coverage. I have just removed the warning message from expected output file as i have performed the testing on Amit's latest patch that removes this warning message

Re: [HACKERS] "Some tests to cover hash_index"

On Tue, Aug 23, 2016 at 2:17 AM, Ashutosh Sharma wrote: > I have also removed the warning message that we used to get for hash index > like 'WARNING: hash indexes are not WAL-logged and their use is discouraged' > as this message is now no more visible w.r.t hash index

Re: [HACKERS] "Some tests to cover hash_index"

Hi, I missed to attach the patch in my previous mail. Here i attach the patch. With Regards, Ashutosh Sharma EnterpriseDB:http://www.enterprisedb.com On Tue, Aug 23, 2016 at 11:47 AM, Ashutosh Sharma wrote: > Hi All, > > I have reverified the code coverage for hash

Re: [HACKERS] "Some tests to cover hash_index"

Hi All, I have reverified the code coverage for hash index code using the test file (commit-hash_coverage_test) attached with this mailing list and have found that some of the code in _hash_squeezebucket() function flow is not being covered. For this i have added a small testcase on top of

Re: [HACKERS] "Some tests to cover hash_index"

On Thu, Aug 4, 2016 at 7:24 PM, Mithun Cy wrote: > I am attaching the patch to improve some coverage of hash index code [1]. > I have added some basic tests, which mainly covers overflow pages. It took > 2 sec extra time in my machine in parallel schedule. > > > > >

[HACKERS] "Some tests to cover hash_index"

I am attaching the patch to improve some coverage of hash index code [1]. I have added some basic tests, which mainly covers overflow pages. It took 2 sec extra time in my machine in parallel schedule. Hit Total Coverage old tests Line Coverage 780 1478 52.7 Function Coverage 63 85 74.1