From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Kevin Grittner <kgrittn(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: How huge does mvtest_huge need to be? |
Date: | 2017-05-03 20:22:31 |
Message-ID: | 7281.1493842951@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Kevin Grittner <kgrittn(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> On Wed, May 3, 2017 at 12:08 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>> So ... is there a good reason to be using a large table here, and
>> if so what is it, and how big does the table really need to be
>> to provide useful test coverage?
> Hm. This seems like a particularly useless size. It would test a
> possibly useful corner case if it was over 10MB so that it was over
> vacuum's truncation threshold, but that would obviously be even
> slower. It doesn't seem justified. How about 500 so it at least
> goes to a second page which is then truncated to 1 page.
Yeah, that aspect occurred to me after a bit too. I'll make it so.
> The "huge" in the object names then seems odd, of course.
Right ... will pick some other name.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2017-05-03 20:42:56 | Re: WITH clause in CREATE STATISTICS |
Previous Message | Andreas Karlsson | 2017-05-03 19:54:50 | Re: CTE inlining |