[rmetzler]

I may be naive, but do people with slow DB tests put the DB in a tmpfs to improve performance?

[tarjei]

We do this all the time. Our tests run against SQLite (I use Mariadb in prod).

Each parallel testrun gets its own path in /dev/shm/xx so everything is in ram as well.

[ptx]

If you're using SQLite, why the indirection of an in-memory filesystem rather than SQLite's in-memory database feature?

[yencabulator]

Not the person you're asking this, but N connections to sqlite :memory: backend results in N separate database instances.

This can be worked around in some scenarios, but not always & reliably. Most importantly, you can't reach the same in-memory database from multiple processes.

https://www.sqlite.org/inmemorydb.html

[mixedCase]

I have used libeatmydata to help with this, but you just made me realize that in my current project I could just dump the test db to RAM. Thanks for the tip!

[sverhagen]

For integration testing I'm sure people do all sorts of "interesting" things. For unit tests in an automated CI build, it is often more desirable to have a smaller subset of data, which presumably is less slow, since tests there also focus on more isolated workflows.