Re: [HACKERS] How huge does mvtest_huge need to be?
От
Kevin Grittner
Тема
Re: [HACKERS] How huge does mvtest_huge need to be?
Дата
Msg-id
CACjxUsOwzk-J9VgsjR8cff8=QY8M2X8Vxc83_LhDbxjV2XRH-A@mail.gmail.com
Ответ на
Список
Дерево обсуждения
[HACKERS] How huge does mvtest_huge need to be? Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Re: [HACKERS] How huge does mvtest_huge need to be? Kevin Grittner <kgrittn@gmail.com>
Re: [HACKERS] How huge does mvtest_huge need to be? Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Re: [HACKERS] How huge does mvtest_huge need to be? Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Re: [HACKERS] How huge does mvtest_huge need to be? Kevin Grittner <kgrittn@gmail.com>
On Wed, May 3, 2017 at 12:08 PM, Tom Lane 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/
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления