[jira] Commented: (LUCENE-1844) Speed up junit tests

[Michael McCandless (JIRA)]

[ 
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-1844?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12836350#action_12836350
 ] 

Michael McCandless commented on LUCENE-1844:


TestNorms fix looks great Robert!

> Speed up junit tests
> 
>
> Key: LUCENE-1844
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-1844
> Project: Lucene - Java
>  Issue Type: Improvement
>Reporter: Mark Miller
>Assignee: Michael McCandless
> Fix For: 3.1
>
> Attachments: FastCnstScoreQTest.patch, hi_junit_test_runtimes.png, 
> LUCENE-1844-Junit3.patch, LUCENE-1844.patch, LUCENE-1844.patch, 
> LUCENE-1844.patch, LUCENE-1844_norms.patch
>
>
> As Lucene grows, so does the number of JUnit tests. This is obviously a good 
> thing, but it comes with longer and longer test times. Now that we also run 
> back compat tests in a standard test run, this problem is essentially doubled.
> There are some ways this may get better, including running parallel tests. 
> You will need the hardware to fully take advantage, but it should be a nice 
> gain. There is already an issue for this, and Junit 4.6, 4.7 have the 
> beginnings of something we might be able to count on soon. 4.6 was buggy, and 
> 4.7 still doesn't come with nice ant integration. Parallel tests will come 
> though.
> Beyond parallel testing, I think we also need to concentrate on keeping our 
> tests lean. We don't want to sacrifice coverage or quality, but I'm sure 
> there is plenty of fat to skim.
> I've started making a list of some of the longer tests - I think with some 
> work we can make our tests much faster - and then with parallelization, I 
> think we could see some really great gains.

-- 
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
-
You can reply to this email to add a comment to the issue online.


-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-h...@lucene.apache.org

[jira] Commented: (LUCENE-1844) Speed up junit tests

[Mark Miller (JIRA)]

[ 
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-1844?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12787004#action_12787004
 ] 

Mark Miller commented on LUCENE-1844:
-

It should work fine.

> Speed up junit tests
> 
>
> Key: LUCENE-1844
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-1844
> Project: Lucene - Java
>  Issue Type: Improvement
>Reporter: Mark Miller
>Assignee: Michael McCandless
> Fix For: 3.1
>
> Attachments: FastCnstScoreQTest.patch, hi_junit_test_runtimes.png, 
> LUCENE-1844-Junit3.patch, LUCENE-1844.patch, LUCENE-1844.patch, 
> LUCENE-1844.patch
>
>
> As Lucene grows, so does the number of JUnit tests. This is obviously a good 
> thing, but it comes with longer and longer test times. Now that we also run 
> back compat tests in a standard test run, this problem is essentially doubled.
> There are some ways this may get better, including running parallel tests. 
> You will need the hardware to fully take advantage, but it should be a nice 
> gain. There is already an issue for this, and Junit 4.6, 4.7 have the 
> beginnings of something we might be able to count on soon. 4.6 was buggy, and 
> 4.7 still doesn't come with nice ant integration. Parallel tests will come 
> though.
> Beyond parallel testing, I think we also need to concentrate on keeping our 
> tests lean. We don't want to sacrifice coverage or quality, but I'm sure 
> there is plenty of fat to skim.
> I've started making a list of some of the longer tests - I think with some 
> work we can make our tests much faster - and then with parallelization, I 
> think we could see some really great gains.

-- 
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
-
You can reply to this email to add a comment to the issue online.


-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-h...@lucene.apache.org

[jira] Commented: (LUCENE-1844) Speed up junit tests

[Michael McCandless (JIRA)]

[ 
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-1844?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12787003#action_12787003
 ] 

Michael McCandless commented on LUCENE-1844:


Mark, if I were to also commit this to flex's back compat branch, will that 
cause conflicts when you next merge?  How good is your svn merge process at not 
freaking out when it sees that some changes had already been merged in...?

(I'm eager to also speed up running "ant test-tag" on flex...).

> Speed up junit tests
> 
>
> Key: LUCENE-1844
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-1844
> Project: Lucene - Java
>  Issue Type: Improvement
>Reporter: Mark Miller
>Assignee: Michael McCandless
> Fix For: 3.1
>
> Attachments: FastCnstScoreQTest.patch, hi_junit_test_runtimes.png, 
> LUCENE-1844-Junit3.patch, LUCENE-1844.patch, LUCENE-1844.patch, 
> LUCENE-1844.patch
>
>
> As Lucene grows, so does the number of JUnit tests. This is obviously a good 
> thing, but it comes with longer and longer test times. Now that we also run 
> back compat tests in a standard test run, this problem is essentially doubled.
> There are some ways this may get better, including running parallel tests. 
> You will need the hardware to fully take advantage, but it should be a nice 
> gain. There is already an issue for this, and Junit 4.6, 4.7 have the 
> beginnings of something we might be able to count on soon. 4.6 was buggy, and 
> 4.7 still doesn't come with nice ant integration. Parallel tests will come 
> though.
> Beyond parallel testing, I think we also need to concentrate on keeping our 
> tests lean. We don't want to sacrifice coverage or quality, but I'm sure 
> there is plenty of fat to skim.
> I've started making a list of some of the longer tests - I think with some 
> work we can make our tests much faster - and then with parallelization, I 
> think we could see some really great gains.

-- 
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
-
You can reply to this email to add a comment to the issue online.


-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-h...@lucene.apache.org

[jira] Commented: (LUCENE-1844) Speed up junit tests

[Erick Erickson (JIRA)]

[ 
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-1844?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12782915#action_12782915
 ] 

Erick Erickson commented on LUCENE-1844:


OK, fire when ready Gridley. Pretty soon I'll understand when to comment and 
how to keep from multiple comments 

This patch does NOT use the Java5 features like generics etc. I've done that 
work and it'll be included in the TestCustomScoreQuery changes for JUnit4.



> Speed up junit tests
> 
>
> Key: LUCENE-1844
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-1844
> Project: Lucene - Java
>  Issue Type: Improvement
>Reporter: Mark Miller
> Attachments: FastCnstScoreQTest.patch, hi_junit_test_runtimes.png, 
> LUCENE-1844-Junit3.patch, LUCENE-1844.patch
>
>
> As Lucene grows, so does the number of JUnit tests. This is obviously a good 
> thing, but it comes with longer and longer test times. Now that we also run 
> back compat tests in a standard test run, this problem is essentially doubled.
> There are some ways this may get better, including running parallel tests. 
> You will need the hardware to fully take advantage, but it should be a nice 
> gain. There is already an issue for this, and Junit 4.6, 4.7 have the 
> beginnings of something we might be able to count on soon. 4.6 was buggy, and 
> 4.7 still doesn't come with nice ant integration. Parallel tests will come 
> though.
> Beyond parallel testing, I think we also need to concentrate on keeping our 
> tests lean. We don't want to sacrifice coverage or quality, but I'm sure 
> there is plenty of fat to skim.
> I've started making a list of some of the longer tests - I think with some 
> work we can make our tests much faster - and then with parallelization, I 
> think we could see some really great gains.

-- 
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
-
You can reply to this email to add a comment to the issue online.


-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-h...@lucene.apache.org

Re: [jira] Commented: (LUCENE-1844) Speed up junit tests

[Mark Miller]

On Nov 25, 2009, at 9:32 PM, Erick Erickson   
wrote:

 I suppose this implies that the
hard-core committers agree that as long as failed tests
are caught/corrected within a day things are fine.


Personally, I don't agree with that. Others are checking out,  
updating, and using the tests to help verify and figure out their  
changes. Breaks in the build are detrimental to this processes. If it  
happens on the rare occassion fine, but you should run the the tests  
before committing - it's being polite to others working with the  
build. Don't break the build is a rule I'm strongly behind - and it  
requires running the tests outside of Hudson.


-mark 


-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-h...@lucene.apache.org

Re: [jira] Commented: (LUCENE-1844) Speed up junit tests

[Erick Erickson]

I posted a rather long diatribe outlining why I think speed-ups
are a false goal for Lucene. Briefly, I'm convinced that as long
as the tests are run when Hudson builds Lucene, 99% of the
value of unit tests is realized. I suppose this implies that the
hard-core committers agree that as long as failed tests
are caught/corrected within a day things are fine.

Although coming from a background where unit
tests are not always required, my viewpoint may be
suspect .

er...@nottobeconfusedwithhatcher.com

On Wed, Nov 25, 2009 at 8:43 PM, Michael McCandless (JIRA)
wrote:

>
>[
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-1844?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12782716#action_12782716]
>
> Michael McCandless commented on LUCENE-1844:
> 
>
> Will we also speed up back-compat tests?
>
> > Speed up junit tests
> > 
> >
> > Key: LUCENE-1844
> > URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-1844
> > Project: Lucene - Java
> >  Issue Type: Improvement
> >Reporter: Mark Miller
> > Attachments: FastCnstScoreQTest.patch,
> hi_junit_test_runtimes.png, LUCENE-1844.patch
> >
> >
> > As Lucene grows, so does the number of JUnit tests. This is obviously a
> good thing, but it comes with longer and longer test times. Now that we also
> run back compat tests in a standard test run, this problem is essentially
> doubled.
> > There are some ways this may get better, including running parallel
> tests. You will need the hardware to fully take advantage, but it should be
> a nice gain. There is already an issue for this, and Junit 4.6, 4.7 have the
> beginnings of something we might be able to count on soon. 4.6 was buggy,
> and 4.7 still doesn't come with nice ant integration. Parallel tests will
> come though.
> > Beyond parallel testing, I think we also need to concentrate on keeping
> our tests lean. We don't want to sacrifice coverage or quality, but I'm sure
> there is plenty of fat to skim.
> > I've started making a list of some of the longer tests - I think with
> some work we can make our tests much faster - and then with parallelization,
> I think we could see some really great gains.
>
> --
> This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
> -
> You can reply to this email to add a comment to the issue online.
>
>
> -
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-h...@lucene.apache.org
>
>

[jira] Commented: (LUCENE-1844) Speed up junit tests

[Michael McCandless (JIRA)]

[ 
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-1844?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12782716#action_12782716
 ] 

Michael McCandless commented on LUCENE-1844:


Will we also speed up back-compat tests?

> Speed up junit tests
> 
>
> Key: LUCENE-1844
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-1844
> Project: Lucene - Java
>  Issue Type: Improvement
>Reporter: Mark Miller
> Attachments: FastCnstScoreQTest.patch, hi_junit_test_runtimes.png, 
> LUCENE-1844.patch
>
>
> As Lucene grows, so does the number of JUnit tests. This is obviously a good 
> thing, but it comes with longer and longer test times. Now that we also run 
> back compat tests in a standard test run, this problem is essentially doubled.
> There are some ways this may get better, including running parallel tests. 
> You will need the hardware to fully take advantage, but it should be a nice 
> gain. There is already an issue for this, and Junit 4.6, 4.7 have the 
> beginnings of something we might be able to count on soon. 4.6 was buggy, and 
> 4.7 still doesn't come with nice ant integration. Parallel tests will come 
> though.
> Beyond parallel testing, I think we also need to concentrate on keeping our 
> tests lean. We don't want to sacrifice coverage or quality, but I'm sure 
> there is plenty of fat to skim.
> I've started making a list of some of the longer tests - I think with some 
> work we can make our tests much faster - and then with parallelization, I 
> think we could see some really great gains.

-- 
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
-
You can reply to this email to add a comment to the issue online.


-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-h...@lucene.apache.org

RE: [jira] Commented: (LUCENE-1844) Speed up junit tests

[Uwe Schindler]

> junit 4 parallelization is still in its infancy. I think the docs for it
> are just in the changes file that it was first released with. That
> version had severe bugs that made it almost unusable - I think thats
> mostly fixed in a newer release. There is also a much better impl of one
> of the key classes (I think they call it computer) written by someone
> else that will eventually go into the code base I think (written by the
> guy(s) that I think found/fixed the initial buggy-ness) - essentially, I
> think its still unbaked.

There is another problem. Parallelization would only work with tests, that
do not change gloabl defaults. E.g. LocalizedTestCase changes the default
locale. If another test would run in Paralale, it would break.

Son only isolated tests can run in parallel. This LocalizedTestCase cannot
solved in another way. The same would have been in 2.9 with the
TokenStream.useOnlyNewAPI switch, but this is now longer the case for 3.1.

Uwe 


-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-h...@lucene.apache.org

RE: [jira] Commented: (LUCENE-1844) Speed up junit tests

[Uwe Schindler]

It's out and already on most of the mirrors...

-
Uwe Schindler
H.-H.-Meier-Allee 63, D-28213 Bremen
http://www.thetaphi.de
eMail: u...@thetaphi.de

> -Original Message-
> From: Michael McCandless [mailto:luc...@mikemccandless.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, November 25, 2009 8:31 PM
> To: java-dev@lucene.apache.org
> Subject: Re: [jira] Commented: (LUCENE-1844) Speed up junit tests
> 
> On Wed, Nov 25, 2009 at 1:01 PM, Erick Erickson 
> wrote:
> > They're ready to go, but at Uwe's suggestion, I've been waiting for 3.0
> to
> > get settled before prompting someone to apply this patch. I was going to
> > generate a new patch for this and for 2037 (junit4 tests) just to make
> sure
> > they were easy to apply. But if you're willing, the patches are already
> > attached to the JIRA issues. Do note that the decision in
> > MinBooleanShouldMatch to stop checking the query after 100 rather than
> > checking all 1,000 is included in the patch
> 
> Uwe do you still think we should wait?  3.0.0 looks like it's "out"?
> 
> > Do you want to apply the patches or should I regenerate? It's no big
> deal to
> > regenerate them and I'll have a better feel for reconciling any
> conflicts. I
> > don't know whether there even *are* any conflicts, but just in case
> 
> Let's hold up until we hear from Uwe...
> 
> > For my info, though, if I have a more recent patch that *replaces* an
> > earlier patch, especially one that hasn't yet been applied, is it
> preferred
> > to delete the earlier patch when providing a new one?
> 
> Actually in general I prefer people not delete the old patches...
> This way if there's a question/confusion we can always go back &
> compare old to new.
> 
> Mike
> 
> -
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-h...@lucene.apache.org



-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-h...@lucene.apache.org

Re: [jira] Commented: (LUCENE-1844) Speed up junit tests

[Michael McCandless]

On Wed, Nov 25, 2009 at 1:01 PM, Erick Erickson  wrote:
> They're ready to go, but at Uwe's suggestion, I've been waiting for 3.0 to
> get settled before prompting someone to apply this patch. I was going to
> generate a new patch for this and for 2037 (junit4 tests) just to make sure
> they were easy to apply. But if you're willing, the patches are already
> attached to the JIRA issues. Do note that the decision in
> MinBooleanShouldMatch to stop checking the query after 100 rather than
> checking all 1,000 is included in the patch

Uwe do you still think we should wait?  3.0.0 looks like it's "out"?

> Do you want to apply the patches or should I regenerate? It's no big deal to
> regenerate them and I'll have a better feel for reconciling any conflicts. I
> don't know whether there even *are* any conflicts, but just in case

Let's hold up until we hear from Uwe...

> For my info, though, if I have a more recent patch that *replaces* an
> earlier patch, especially one that hasn't yet been applied, is it preferred
> to delete the earlier patch when providing a new one?

Actually in general I prefer people not delete the old patches...
This way if there's a question/confusion we can always go back &
compare old to new.

Mike

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-h...@lucene.apache.org

Re: [jira] Commented: (LUCENE-1844) Speed up junit tests

[Erick Erickson]

Hmmm, the patches that I supplied for Junit4 *require* 4.7 anyway, which
I included in the patch... Is this a problem? Or just a document problem?

Erick

On Wed, Nov 25, 2009 at 1:14 PM, Mark Miller  wrote:

> junit 4 parallelization is still in its infancy. I think the docs for it
> are just in the changes file that it was first released with. That
> version had severe bugs that made it almost unusable - I think thats
> mostly fixed in a newer release. There is also a much better impl of one
> of the key classes (I think they call it computer) written by someone
> else that will eventually go into the code base I think (written by the
> guy(s) that I think found/fixed the initial buggy-ness) - essentially, I
> think its still unbaked.
>
> Here are some docs from the release notes of 4.6:
>
> http://sourceforge.net/project/shownotes.php?release_id=675664&group_id=15278
>
> Thats also an issue - it arrived only in 4.6 - so this would need to be
> optional unless we bumped up our req from 4 - and it really requires at
> least 4.7 for the fixes (if everything is even fixed).
>
> You also have to setup which tests run in parallel by hand essentially.
> No ant task to help with this last I looked. So it will probably end up
> being an alternate way to run the tests initially (at best).
>
> - Mark
>
> Erick Erickson wrote:
> > They're ready to go, but at Uwe's suggestion, I've been waiting for
> > 3.0 to get settled before prompting someone to apply this patch. I was
> > going to generate a new patch for this and for 2037 (junit4 tests)
> > just to make sure they were easy to apply. But if you're willing, the
> > patches are already attached to the JIRA issues. Do note that the
> > decision in MinBooleanShouldMatch to stop checking the query after 100
> > rather than checking all 1,000 is included in the patch
> >
> > Do you want to apply the patches or should I regenerate? It's no big
> > deal to regenerate them and I'll have a better feel for reconciling
> > any conflicts. I don't know whether there even *are* any conflicts,
> > but just in case
> >
> > For my info, though, if I have a more recent patch that *replaces* an
> > earlier patch, especially one that hasn't yet been applied, is it
> > preferred to delete the earlier patch when providing a new one?
> >
> > I'm not pleased with the Junit4 documentation, most of what I've been
> > able to glean has come from brave souls blogging. Does anyone have a
> > gold mine or is it as hit-or-miss as I think? There are hints of
> > parallelization capabilities in Junit4, but I'm having a hard time
> > finding anything in much depth. The Junit website is pathetic, I
> > can't even find 4.7 javadocs, it keeps giving me 4.5, as evidenced by
> > no @Rule docs or @Intercept. And no version information in the
> > javadocs. Or I'm completely missing the boat I was thinking
> > about getting the entire project over the weekend and generating my
> > own if I have the time
> >
> > Erick
> >
> > On Wed, Nov 25, 2009 at 11:49 AM, Michael McCandless (JIRA)
> > mailto:j...@apache.org>> wrote:
> >
> >
> >[
> >
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-1844?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12782497#action_12782497
> > <
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-1844?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12782497#action_12782497
> >
> > ]
> >
> > Michael McCandless commented on LUCENE-1844:
> > 
> >
> > Is this ready to go in?  I'd really love to see unit tests run
> > faster :)
> >
> > > Speed up junit tests
> > > 
> > >
> > > Key: LUCENE-1844
> > > URL:
> > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-1844
> > > Project: Lucene - Java
> > >  Issue Type: Improvement
> > >Reporter: Mark Miller
> > > Attachments: FastCnstScoreQTest.patch,
> > hi_junit_test_runtimes.png, LUCENE-1844.patch
> > >
> > >
> > > As Lucene grows, so does the number of JUnit tests. This is
> > obviously a good thing, but it comes with longer and longer test
> > times. Now that we also run back compat tests in a standard test
> > run, this problem is essentially doubled.
> > > There are some ways this may get better, including running
> > parallel tests. You will need the hardware to fully take
> > advantage, but it should be a nice gain. There is already an issue
> > for this, and Junit 4.6, 4.7 have the beginnings of something we
> > might be able to count on soon. 4.6 was buggy, and 4.7 still
> > doesn't come with nice ant integration. Parallel tests will come
> > though.
> > > Beyond parallel testing, I think we also need to concentrate on
> > keeping our tests lean. We don't want to sacrifice coverage or
>

Re: [jira] Commented: (LUCENE-1844) Speed up junit tests

[Mark Miller]

junit 4 parallelization is still in its infancy. I think the docs for it
are just in the changes file that it was first released with. That
version had severe bugs that made it almost unusable - I think thats
mostly fixed in a newer release. There is also a much better impl of one
of the key classes (I think they call it computer) written by someone
else that will eventually go into the code base I think (written by the
guy(s) that I think found/fixed the initial buggy-ness) - essentially, I
think its still unbaked.

Here are some docs from the release notes of 4.6:
http://sourceforge.net/project/shownotes.php?release_id=675664&group_id=15278

Thats also an issue - it arrived only in 4.6 - so this would need to be
optional unless we bumped up our req from 4 - and it really requires at
least 4.7 for the fixes (if everything is even fixed).

You also have to setup which tests run in parallel by hand essentially.
No ant task to help with this last I looked. So it will probably end up
being an alternate way to run the tests initially (at best).

- Mark

Erick Erickson wrote:
> They're ready to go, but at Uwe's suggestion, I've been waiting for
> 3.0 to get settled before prompting someone to apply this patch. I was
> going to generate a new patch for this and for 2037 (junit4 tests)
> just to make sure they were easy to apply. But if you're willing, the
> patches are already attached to the JIRA issues. Do note that the
> decision in MinBooleanShouldMatch to stop checking the query after 100
> rather than checking all 1,000 is included in the patch
>
> Do you want to apply the patches or should I regenerate? It's no big
> deal to regenerate them and I'll have a better feel for reconciling
> any conflicts. I don't know whether there even *are* any conflicts,
> but just in case
>
> For my info, though, if I have a more recent patch that *replaces* an
> earlier patch, especially one that hasn't yet been applied, is it
> preferred to delete the earlier patch when providing a new one?
>
> I'm not pleased with the Junit4 documentation, most of what I've been
> able to glean has come from brave souls blogging. Does anyone have a
> gold mine or is it as hit-or-miss as I think? There are hints of
> parallelization capabilities in Junit4, but I'm having a hard time
> finding anything in much depth. The Junit website is pathetic, I
> can't even find 4.7 javadocs, it keeps giving me 4.5, as evidenced by
> no @Rule docs or @Intercept. And no version information in the
> javadocs. Or I'm completely missing the boat I was thinking
> about getting the entire project over the weekend and generating my
> own if I have the time
>
> Erick
>
> On Wed, Nov 25, 2009 at 11:49 AM, Michael McCandless (JIRA)
> mailto:j...@apache.org>> wrote:
>
>
>[
> 
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-1844?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12782497#action_12782497
> 
> 
> ]
>
> Michael McCandless commented on LUCENE-1844:
> 
>
> Is this ready to go in?  I'd really love to see unit tests run
> faster :)
>
> > Speed up junit tests
> > 
> >
> > Key: LUCENE-1844
> > URL:
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-1844
> > Project: Lucene - Java
> >  Issue Type: Improvement
> >Reporter: Mark Miller
> > Attachments: FastCnstScoreQTest.patch,
> hi_junit_test_runtimes.png, LUCENE-1844.patch
> >
> >
> > As Lucene grows, so does the number of JUnit tests. This is
> obviously a good thing, but it comes with longer and longer test
> times. Now that we also run back compat tests in a standard test
> run, this problem is essentially doubled.
> > There are some ways this may get better, including running
> parallel tests. You will need the hardware to fully take
> advantage, but it should be a nice gain. There is already an issue
> for this, and Junit 4.6, 4.7 have the beginnings of something we
> might be able to count on soon. 4.6 was buggy, and 4.7 still
> doesn't come with nice ant integration. Parallel tests will come
> though.
> > Beyond parallel testing, I think we also need to concentrate on
> keeping our tests lean. We don't want to sacrifice coverage or
> quality, but I'm sure there is plenty of fat to skim.
> > I've started making a list of some of the longer tests - I think
> with some work we can make our tests much faster - and then with
> parallelization, I think we could see some really great gains.
>
> --
> This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
> -
> You can reply to this email to add a com

Re: [jira] Commented: (LUCENE-1844) Speed up junit tests

[Erick Erickson]

They're ready to go, but at Uwe's suggestion, I've been waiting for 3.0 to
get settled before prompting someone to apply this patch. I was going to
generate a new patch for this and for 2037 (junit4 tests) just to make sure
they were easy to apply. But if you're willing, the patches are already
attached to the JIRA issues. Do note that the decision in
MinBooleanShouldMatch to stop checking the query after 100 rather than
checking all 1,000 is included in the patch

Do you want to apply the patches or should I regenerate? It's no big deal to
regenerate them and I'll have a better feel for reconciling any conflicts. I
don't know whether there even *are* any conflicts, but just in case

For my info, though, if I have a more recent patch that *replaces* an
earlier patch, especially one that hasn't yet been applied, is it preferred
to delete the earlier patch when providing a new one?

I'm not pleased with the Junit4 documentation, most of what I've been able
to glean has come from brave souls blogging. Does anyone have a gold mine or
is it as hit-or-miss as I think? There are hints of parallelization
capabilities in Junit4, but I'm having a hard time finding anything in much
depth. The Junit website is pathetic, I can't even find 4.7 javadocs, it
keeps giving me 4.5, as evidenced by no @Rule docs or @Intercept. And no
version information in the javadocs. Or I'm completely missing the
boat I was thinking about getting the entire project over the weekend
and generating my own if I have the time

Erick

On Wed, Nov 25, 2009 at 11:49 AM, Michael McCandless (JIRA)  wrote:

>
>[
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-1844?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12782497#action_12782497]
>
> Michael McCandless commented on LUCENE-1844:
> 
>
> Is this ready to go in?  I'd really love to see unit tests run faster :)
>
> > Speed up junit tests
> > 
> >
> > Key: LUCENE-1844
> > URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-1844
> > Project: Lucene - Java
> >  Issue Type: Improvement
> >Reporter: Mark Miller
> > Attachments: FastCnstScoreQTest.patch,
> hi_junit_test_runtimes.png, LUCENE-1844.patch
> >
> >
> > As Lucene grows, so does the number of JUnit tests. This is obviously a
> good thing, but it comes with longer and longer test times. Now that we also
> run back compat tests in a standard test run, this problem is essentially
> doubled.
> > There are some ways this may get better, including running parallel
> tests. You will need the hardware to fully take advantage, but it should be
> a nice gain. There is already an issue for this, and Junit 4.6, 4.7 have the
> beginnings of something we might be able to count on soon. 4.6 was buggy,
> and 4.7 still doesn't come with nice ant integration. Parallel tests will
> come though.
> > Beyond parallel testing, I think we also need to concentrate on keeping
> our tests lean. We don't want to sacrifice coverage or quality, but I'm sure
> there is plenty of fat to skim.
> > I've started making a list of some of the longer tests - I think with
> some work we can make our tests much faster - and then with parallelization,
> I think we could see some really great gains.
>
> --
> This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
> -
> You can reply to this email to add a comment to the issue online.
>
>
> -
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-h...@lucene.apache.org
>
>

[jira] Commented: (LUCENE-1844) Speed up junit tests

[Michael McCandless (JIRA)]

[ 
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-1844?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12782497#action_12782497
 ] 

Michael McCandless commented on LUCENE-1844:


Is this ready to go in?  I'd really love to see unit tests run faster :)

> Speed up junit tests
> 
>
> Key: LUCENE-1844
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-1844
> Project: Lucene - Java
>  Issue Type: Improvement
>Reporter: Mark Miller
> Attachments: FastCnstScoreQTest.patch, hi_junit_test_runtimes.png, 
> LUCENE-1844.patch
>
>
> As Lucene grows, so does the number of JUnit tests. This is obviously a good 
> thing, but it comes with longer and longer test times. Now that we also run 
> back compat tests in a standard test run, this problem is essentially doubled.
> There are some ways this may get better, including running parallel tests. 
> You will need the hardware to fully take advantage, but it should be a nice 
> gain. There is already an issue for this, and Junit 4.6, 4.7 have the 
> beginnings of something we might be able to count on soon. 4.6 was buggy, and 
> 4.7 still doesn't come with nice ant integration. Parallel tests will come 
> though.
> Beyond parallel testing, I think we also need to concentrate on keeping our 
> tests lean. We don't want to sacrifice coverage or quality, but I'm sure 
> there is plenty of fat to skim.
> I've started making a list of some of the longer tests - I think with some 
> work we can make our tests much faster - and then with parallelization, I 
> think we could see some really great gains.

-- 
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
-
You can reply to this email to add a comment to the issue online.


-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-h...@lucene.apache.org

[jira] Commented: (LUCENE-1844) Speed up junit tests

[Mark Miller (JIRA)]

[ 
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-1844?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12746605#action_12746605
 ] 

Mark Miller commented on LUCENE-1844:
-

Should also be able to speed up TestBooleanMinShouldMatch somehow. Its nearly a 
minute as well.

In a loop of 1000 random queries, this is called each time:

QueryUtils.check(q1,s);
QueryUtils.check(q2,s);

Take it out and the test is like 2-5 seconds. Must be some way to optimize this 
down without losing coverage.

> Speed up junit tests
> 
>
> Key: LUCENE-1844
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-1844
> Project: Lucene - Java
>  Issue Type: Improvement
>Reporter: Mark Miller
> Attachments: FastCnstScoreQTest.patch, hi_junit_test_runtimes.png
>
>
> As Lucene grows, so does the number of JUnit tests. This is obviously a good 
> thing, but it comes with longer and longer test times. Now that we also run 
> back compat tests in a standard test run, this problem is essentially doubled.
> There are some ways this may get better, including running parallel tests. 
> You will need the hardware to fully take advantage, but it should be a nice 
> gain. There is already an issue for this, and Junit 4.6, 4.7 have the 
> beginnings of something we might be able to count on soon. 4.6 was buggy, and 
> 4.7 still doesn't come with nice ant integration. Parallel tests will come 
> though.
> Beyond parallel testing, I think we also need to concentrate on keeping our 
> tests lean. We don't want to sacrifice coverage or quality, but I'm sure 
> there is plenty of fat to skim.
> I've started making a list of some of the longer tests - I think with some 
> work we can make our tests much faster - and then with parallelization, I 
> think we could see some really great gains.

-- 
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
-
You can reply to this email to add a comment to the issue online.


-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-h...@lucene.apache.org