Re: test_json_parser/002_inline is kind of slow

From: Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>
To: Jacob Champion <jacob(dot)champion(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Subject: Re: test_json_parser/002_inline is kind of slow
Date: 2025-09-27 13:58:42
Message-ID: b52b15fb-d9d8-40f2-9b6b-d64a1c31275a@dunslane.net
Views: Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers


On 2025-09-26 Fr 8:06 PM, Jacob Champion wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 26, 2025 at 9:26 AM Jacob Champion
> <jacob(dot)champion(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> wrote:
>> If it's truly just a few lines, then I've misunderstood what you're
>> suggesting (patches welcome). It's not the separator splitting that
>> I'm worried about, but the restructuring of the test.
> Here is a very slapdash attempt at pushing the "chunk size iteration"
> part of the tests down into the test executable, using null
> separators. I think it's ugly, but maybe not quite as bad as I feared.
> Unfortunately it only gives about a 4x speedup on my machine, and I
> was hoping for much more. (We should really expect this entire thing
> to run in a fraction of a second.)
>
> Let me know if you think the tradeoff is worth it for now; I can
> polish it up if so.
>

On my (Linux) test it went from 3.75s to 0.78s, nearly 80% reduction. I
think the reduction on Windows is likely to be more. So I think this is
worth doing.

cheers

andrew

--
Andrew Dunstan
EDB: https://www.enterprisedb.com

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Greg Burd 2025-09-27 14:03:14 Re: [PATCH] Add tests for Bitmapset
Previous Message Peter Eisentraut 2025-09-27 13:40:05 Re: [PATCH] GROUP BY ALL