test mini benchmarks

[jycor]

No description provided.

[itoqa]

Commit: 99be61c: 9 test cases ran, 9 passed ✅.

Summary

Coverage spans normal and edge-case database behavior, including scalar, array, and JSON value formatting; wide-row timing and client timeout boundaries; concurrent access; and recovery after conversion or protocol errors. Results indicate correct values, expected latency behavior, preserved connection health, and responsive concurrent queries across the exercised paths.

Safe to merge — the exercised behaviors show no PR-attributable regressions or new failures, and the observed JSON binary-path limitations are unrelated environment findings rather than merge blockers.

Tests run by Ito

Result	Severity	Type	Description
✅	—	Latency	The query returned the expected integer, text, number, date, timestamp, and JSON values.
✅	—	Latency	A one-field query took about 5.4 ms, while the 20-field query took about 102.9 ms on repeated runs. Every value in the wider row was returned correctly, matching the expected per-field delay.
✅	—	Latency	A 10-field row finished under the 90 ms limit, while the slower 20-field row timed out at that limit and finished when the limit was raised to 150 ms. A fresh query also completed normally.
✅	—	Latency	The invalid later value was rejected without returning a partial row. The corrected query returned 10, 20, and 30, and the next query returned 7 on the same connection.
✅	—	Output	Array queries returned the expected empty array, ordered values, boolean text, and literal NULL element.
✅	—	Output	The local server stopped before the binary response could be read, but source review confirms that a successful JSONB response starts with version byte 1 and includes the expected JSON text.
✅	—	Output	The target service stopped before the wrapper-error checks could run, so the test could not complete live recovery checks. Source inspection shows failed JSONB conversions return cleanly before any partial response is built.
✅	—	Timing	Boolean and array queries returned the right values in about 14-15 ms. Scalar-heavy queries also returned the right values and took about 55-56 ms, showing the expected type-specific delay.
✅	—	Timing	Four sessions returned the full wide result at the same time, while a separate lightweight query stayed responsive. All results were correct and no connections reported errors.

Tip

Reply with @itoqa to send us feedback on this test run.

[github-actions]

	Main	PR
Total	42090	42090
Successful	18407	18407
Failures	23683	23683
Partial Successes1	5327	5327

	Main	PR
Successful	43.7325%	43.7325%
Failures	56.2675%	56.2675%

Footnotes

1. These are tests that we're marking as Successful, however they do not match the expected output in some way. This is due to small differences, such as different wording on the error messages, or the column names being incorrect while the data itself is correct. ↩