| From: | Kevin Grittner <kgrittn(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| 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 17:47:55 |
| Message-ID: | CACjxUsOwzk-J9VgsjR8cff8=QY8M2X8Vxc83_LhDbxjV2XRH-A@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
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.
The "huge" in the object names then seems odd, of course.
--
Kevin Grittner
VMware vCenter Server
https://www.vmware.com/
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2017-05-03 17:48:06 | Re: renaming "transaction log" |
| Previous Message | Pavel Stehule | 2017-05-03 17:44:17 | Re: CTE inlining |