Re: "Some tests to cover hash_index" - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Amit Kapila
Subject Re: "Some tests to cover hash_index"
Date
Msg-id CAA4eK1JxK9ddD=8Zn6npMGh9KHL-wz3wa5wE3resqsWp+W2=fA@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to "Some tests to cover hash_index"  (Mithun Cy <mithun.cy@enterprisedb.com>)
Responses Re: "Some tests to cover hash_index"  (Ashutosh Sharma <ashu.coek88@gmail.com>)
Re: "Some tests to cover hash_index"  (Mithun Cy <mithun.cy@enterprisedb.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
On Thu, Aug 4, 2016 at 7:24 PM, Mithun Cy <mithun.cy@enterprisedb.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.




HitTotalCoverage
old testsLine Coverage780147852.7

Function Coverage638574.1
improvement after testsLine Coverage1181147879.9 %

Function Coverage788591.8 %




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

pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Bruce Momjian
Date:
Subject: Re: Heap WARM Tuples - Design Draft
Next
From: Pavan Deolasee
Date:
Subject: Re: Heap WARM Tuples - Design Draft