Mailing-List: contact derby-dev-help@db.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: <derby-dev@db.apache.org>
Received-SPF: neutral (asf.osuosl.org: local policy)
Message-ID: <44DCB7DC.3050905@apache.org>
Date: Fri, 11 Aug 2006 10:01:16 -0700
From: Daniel John Debrunner <djd@apache.org>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US;
 rv:1.7.3) Gecko/20040910
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: derby-dev@db.apache.org
Subject: Re: [jira] Assigned: (DERBY-1664) Derby startup time is too slow
References: <21233852.1155248954791.JavaMail.jira@brutus>
 <44DBC695.1060303@sbcglobal.net> <44DBCBCF.9070703@sun.com>
 <x1oxslk4qatb.fsf@sun.com> <44DCAC66.5010503@sun.com>
 <44DCAF6E.8090406@apache.org> <44DCB2A5.4050407@sun.com>
In-Reply-To: <44DCB2A5.4050407@sun.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

David Van Couvering wrote:

> Well, yes, but one might argue that we're going about it the wrong way:
> "It takes too long to run derby tests because it takes so long to start
> up the database."  "Ok, well, let's fix it so that you don't have to
> restart the database for each  unit test."

I think for the tests it's really a case of "It takes too long to run
derby tests because we run a separate JVM for each test case".

My total guess is that making derby boot/create databases faster could
bring the tests down from 5+ hours to 4+ hours. My guess for moving to
JUnit wil bring them down to under 2 hours.

It's all good work, complementing each other. Just when I see someone
complain about somthing in open source, my automatic reaction is to get
them involved, complaining won't fix anything, "doing" does.

Seems like the JUnit work should have the option of either re-using &
cleaning the current database, or creating a new one. Might be a useful
comparision across a set of tests.

Dan.