From: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com> |
Cc: | "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Robins Tharakan <tharakan(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Subject: | Re: New regression test time |
Date: | 2013-06-29 04:36:36 |
Message-ID: | 20130629043636.GA3757@eldon.alvh.no-ip.org |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Josh Berkus escribió:
> Hackers,
>
> Per discussion on these tests, I ran "make check" against 9.4 head,
> applied all of the regression tests other than DISCARD.
>
> Time for 3 "make check" runs without new tests: 65.9s
>
> Time for 3 "make check runs with new tests: 71.7s
>
> So that's an increase of about 10% in test runtime (or 2 seconds per run
> on my laptop),
I see two problems with this report:
1. it creates a new installation for each run,
2. it only uses the serial schedule.
I care more about the parallel schedule than the serial one, because
since it obviously runs in less time, then I can run it often and not
worry about how long it takes. On the other hand, the cost of the extra
initdb obviously means that the percentage is a bit lower than if you
were to compare test run time without considering the initdb step.
--
Álvaro Herrera http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Fabien COELHO | 2013-06-29 05:18:04 | [PATCH] big test separation POC |
Previous Message | Fabien COELHO | 2013-06-29 04:28:47 | Re: New regression test time |