Re: [HACKERS] How huge does mvtest_huge need to be?

Поиск
Список
Период
Сортировка
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
обсуждение исходный текст
Ответ на [HACKERS] How huge does mvtest_huge need to be?  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
Ответы Re: [HACKERS] How huge does mvtest_huge need to be?  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
Список pgsql-hackers
On Wed, May 3, 2017 at 12:08 PM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.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/



В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления:

Предыдущее
От: Pavel Stehule
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: [HACKERS] CTE inlining
Следующее
От: Alvaro Herrera
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: [HACKERS] renaming "transaction log"