Hi All, I have reverified the code coverage for hash index code using the test file (commit-hash_coverage_test) attached with this mailing list and have found that some of the code in _hash_squeezebucket() function flow is not being covered. For this i have added a small testcase on top of 'commit hash_coverage_test' patch. I have done this mainly to test Amit's WAL for hash index patch [1].
I have also removed the warning message that we used to get for hash index like 'WARNING: hash indexes are not WAL-logged and their use is discouraged' as this message is now no more visible w.r.t hash index after the WAL patch for hash index. Please have a look and let me know your thoughts. [1] - https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CAA4eK1JOBX%3DYU33631Qh-XivYXtPSALh514%2BjR8XeD7v%2BK3r_Q%40mail.gmail.com With Regards, Ashutosh Sharma EnterpriseDB:http://www.enterprisedb.com On Sat, Aug 6, 2016 at 9:41 AM, Amit Kapila <amit.kapil...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Thu, Aug 4, 2016 at 7:24 PM, Mithun Cy <mithun...@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. >> >> >> >> >> Hit Total Coverage >> old tests Line Coverage 780 1478 52.7 >> >> Function Coverage 63 85 74.1 >> improvement after tests Line Coverage 1181 1478 79.9 % >> >> Function Coverage 78 85 91.8 % >> >> > > 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 >
