Re: "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 <ashu(dot)coek88(at)gmail(dot)com>
wrote:

> 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 'commit
> hash_coverage_test' patch. I have done this mainly to test Amit's WAL for
> hash index patch [1].
>
> 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 after
> the WAL patch for hash index. Please have a look and let me know your
> thoughts.
>
> [1] - https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CAA4eK1JOBX%
> 3DYU33631Qh-XivYXtPSALh514%2BjR8XeD7v%2BK3r_Q%40mail.gmail.com
>
> With Regards,
> Ashutosh Sharma
> EnterpriseDB:http://www.enterprisedb.com
>
> On Sat, Aug 6, 2016 at 9:41 AM, Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com>
> wrote:
>
>> On Thu, Aug 4, 2016 at 7:24 PM, Mithun Cy <mithun(dot)cy(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>
>> 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.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Hit Total Coverage
>>> old tests Line Coverage 780 1478 52.7
>>>
>>> Function Coverage 63 85 74.1
>>> improvement after tests Line Coverage 1181 1478 79.9 %
>>>
>>> Function Coverage 78 85 91.8 %
>>>
>>>
>>
>> I think the code coverage improvement for hash index with these tests
>> seems to be quite good, however time for tests seems to be slightly on
>> higher side. Do anybody have better suggestion for these tests?
>>
>> diff --git a/src/test/regress/sql/concurrent_hash_index.sql
>> b/src/test/regress/sql/concurrent_hash_index.sql
>> I wonder why you have included a new file for these tests, why can't be
>> these added to existing hash_index.sql.
>>
>> +--
>> +-- Cause some overflow insert and splits.
>> +--
>> +CREATE TABLE con_hash_index_table (keycol INT);
>> +CREATE INDEX con_hash_index on con_hash_index_table USING HASH (keycol);
>>
>> The relation name con_hash_index* choosen in above tests doesn't seem to
>> be appropriate, how about hash_split_heap* or something like that.
>>
>> Register your patch in latest CF (https://commitfest.postgresql.org/10/)
>>
>> --
>> With Regards,
>> Amit Kapila.
>> EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
>>
>
>