> > > > ---
> > >
> > > Does this need to be done via a completely new test case? Given the
> > > number of unit tests for the hash table structure, I'm wondering if
> > > we can consolidate things a bit. Any thoughts?
> > >
> > Are you concerned about new test case or new test case file?
> > From
On Tue, Oct 23, 2018 at 02:15:30PM +, Honnappa Nagarahalli wrote:
> Hi Bruce,
> Thank you for the review.
>
> > > - hash lookup on existing keys NOT likely to be on shift-path with:
> > > - hash add causing key-shifts of existing keys in the table
> > >
> > > - hash lookup on non-exist
Hi Bruce,
Thank you for the review.
> > - hash lookup on existing keys NOT likely to be on shift-path with:
> > - hash add causing key-shifts of existing keys in the table
> >
> > - hash lookup on non-existing keys with:
> > - hash add causing NO key-shifts of existing keys in the tabl
On Mon, Oct 22, 2018 at 11:22:04PM -0500, Honnappa Nagarahalli wrote:
> From: Dharmik Thakkar
>
> Unit tests to check for hash lookup and bulk-lookup perf
> with lock-free enabled and with lock-free disabled.
> Unit tests performed with readers running in parallel with writers.
>
> Tests include
On Mon, Oct 22, 2018 at 11:22:04PM -0500, Honnappa Nagarahalli wrote:
> From: Dharmik Thakkar
>
> Unit tests to check for hash lookup and bulk-lookup perf
> with lock-free enabled and with lock-free disabled.
> Unit tests performed with readers running in parallel with writers.
>
> Tests include
From: Dharmik Thakkar
Unit tests to check for hash lookup and bulk-lookup perf
with lock-free enabled and with lock-free disabled.
Unit tests performed with readers running in parallel with writers.
Tests include:
- hash lookup on existing keys with:
- hash add causing NO key-shifts of existi
6 matches
Mail list logo
