New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
performance with large source base #87
Comments
Looking at the .testmondata files now, they're ~34MB. 11MB with this change. I like it! |
It looks like it's a bit faster, but I have only run two tests, so take it with a grain of salt:
|
Wow, that's still a long time, I hope it's not all testmon overhead. How long does pytest --collectonly take? I'm testing on pytest (https://github.com/pytest-dev/pytest) code base and no changes run takes 3 seconds. |
--collectonly takes 8 seconds. We've optimized that a bit to make it only look in specific folders. I'll get back to you with the unit test run time... |
This is all with the old version of testmon we use at work, not the new code from master, and it's with a 38MB .testmon database:
So not very encouraging! If I delete .testmondata and rerun |
Ok, thanks a lot for your reports. I'll need to set-up and do performance tuning on some large opensource project with pytest compatible test suite. |
Unfortunately there doesn't seem to be a python open source project with comparable size. Maybe django? |
Bingo, It seems https://github.com/zzzeek/sqlalchemy fits the bill! And I discovered a where do we loose o lot of time. @boxed commit comming! |
…nt improvement. It shaved 95% of the time of collection of sqlalchemy test suite.
This has been fixed in version 1.x |
There is a lot of repetition and json array in the .testmondata sqlite database, let's make it more efficient.
@boxed you mentioned you have 20mb per commit Db, so this might interest you.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: