Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Bloom index contrib module
От | Noah Misch |
---|---|
Тема | Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Bloom index contrib module |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 20160409234332.GA1747447@tornado.leadboat.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Bloom index contrib module (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>) |
Ответы |
Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Bloom index contrib module
Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Bloom index contrib module |
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Sat, Apr 09, 2016 at 11:50:08AM -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > Teodor Sigaev <teodor@sigaev.ru> writes: > > Bloom index contrib module > > Would it be possible to dial down the amount of runtime consumed by > the regression tests for this module? > > On my primary dev machine, "make installcheck" in contrib/bloom takes > 4.5 seconds, which seems a bit excessive when make installcheck across > all the rest of contrib takes 22 seconds. > > On prairiedog, which admittedly is one of the slower buildfarm animals > (though far from the slowest), the contrib-install-check-C step went > from 2:54 immediately before this patch went in to 4:28 immediately > after. > > That seems out of line for a single contrib module, especially one of > unproven usefulness. I find this added test duration reasonable. If someone identifies a way to realize similar coverage with lower duration, I'd value that contribution. -1 for meeting some runtime target at the expense of coverage. Older modules have rather little test coverage, so they're poor as benchmarks. A feature's lack of usefulness can be a good reason to exclude it from the tree entirely, but it's a bad reason to slash the feature's test cases. (I have not evaluated the usefulness of this access method.)
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: