On Mon, Sep 19, 2016 at 8:44 PM, Mithun Cy <mithun...@enterprisedb.com> wrote: > On Sat, Aug 6, 2016 at 9:41 AM, Amit Kapila <amit.kapil...@gmail.com> wrote: >> I wonder why you have included a new file for these tests, why can't be >> these added to existing hash_index.sql. > tests in hash_index.sql did not cover overflow pages, above tests were for > mainly for them. >
The name of file hash_index_split suggests it focus on split. Are the tests focussed more on overflow pages or on split of hash index? So I thought having a separate test file can help > enabling/disabling them in schedule files, when we do not want them running > as it take slightly high time. If you think otherwise I will reconsider will > add tests to hash_index.sql. > I think you have a point, but not sure if it is worth to add a separate file. It might be tricky to choose which file to add new tests for hash_indexes. Anybody else have opinion on this point? Can you check how much time it takes as compare to btree or brin index tests? I am facing below diff with your new patch. *************** *** 1,4 **** ! -- -- Cause some overflow insert and splits. -- CREATE TABLE hash_split_heap (keycol INT); --- 1,4 ---- ! -- -- Cause some overflow insert and splits. -- CREATE TABLE hash_split_heap (keycol INT); ====================================================================== There is an extra space in expected file which is leading to above failure. -- With Regards, Amit Kapila. EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
