Integration testing with PostgreSQL, Drizzle and Vitest

dyedwiper — Sun, 18 Oct 2026 12:42:01 +0000

For a new TypeScript project I recently had to come up with a concept for integration testing. It was already decided that we will use the following technologies:

PostgreSQL as database
Drizzle as ORM framework
Vitest as testing framework

The main question was how to setup a database on which the tests can run. I didn't find much on the topic but the article How to Test Your Node.js & Postgres App Using Drizzle & PGlite gave me a starting point. I implemented a POC with PGlite but wasn't really happy with it because it seemed quite slow. The article also mentioned Testcontainers as a possible solution but discouraged it - and also to me, creating throwaway containers sounded like a lot of overhead. Then a friend had the idea to create throwaway databases in a running PostgreSQL instance instead and I followed that path.

In the end I came up with four approaches, first the approach with PGlite and then three different approaches for creating throwaway databases in a running PostgreSQL instance. Following I'll introduce the implementations and show some measurements I took on the performance.

I implemented the POCs in a repository I created a while ago for architectural study: https://github.com/dyedwiper/cinesmall You can find the respective code in the "ddd" folder and in the branches called "int-tests-*".

General notes on the usage of Vitest and Drizzle

All approaches make use of Vitest's setupFiles and some of globalSetup.

For pushing the schema programmatically I used a function from drizzle-kit which is not documented. I read about it in a discussion on Github: Push schema programatically?

General notes on the tests

In all approaches I used the same tests. I also added some unit tests to see how they can be distinguished from integration tests. (Although this is a different topic, I left them in because I don't think they distract too much.)

Writing the integration tests I especially took care that they fail if the database is not correctly cleaned up between tests. Here is the code from one of the integration test files:

describe('addScreening', () => {
    test('db is cleared after each test', async () => {
        const screenings = await db.query.screenings.findMany();

        expect(screenings).toHaveLength(0);
    });

    test('adds a screening', async () => {
        const weekplanId = crypto.randomUUID();
        await db.insert(weekplans).values({ id: weekplanId, startDate: '2026-07-16' });

        const dto = {
            weekplanId: weekplanId,
            date: '2026-07-17',
            hallNumber: 1,
            film: 'Xaver und sein außerirdischer Freund',
            duration: 90,
        };
        await addScreening(dto);

        const result = await db.query.weekplans.findFirst({
            where: { id: weekplanId },
            with: { screenings: true },
        });
        expect(result?.screenings).toHaveLength(1);
    });

    test('db is cleared after each test', async () => {
        const screenings = await db.query.screenings.findMany();

        expect(screenings).toHaveLength(0);
    });
});

You can find the above test file here (or in the other branches respectively): https://github.com/dyedwiper/cinesmall/blob/int-tests-pglite/ddd/src/contexts/weekplanning/useCases/addScreening.uc.int-test.ts

The four approaches

1. Create a PGlite database for each test file

In the setupFile the drizzle instance is mocked with an instance connected to PGlite. The package @electric-sql/pglite is used to create the PGlite instance.

const db = drizzle({ client: new PGlite(), relations: schema.relations });
await (await pushSchema(schema, db)).apply();

// Inspired by https://github.com/drizzle-team/drizzle-orm/issues/4205
vi.doMock(import('../db/index.js'), async () => ({ db }));

afterEach(async () => {
    await reset(db, schema);
});

Also an afterEach hook is added to clear the database after each test.

The setupFile is specified to run before each test in the Vitest config:

export default defineProject({
    test: {
        // ...
        projects: [
            {
                test: {
                    name: 'Integration Tests',
                    include: [`**/*.int-test.ts`],
                    setupFiles: 'src/shared/test/dbSetup.ts',
                },
            },
            {
                test: {
                    name: 'Unit Tests',
                    include: [`**/*.test.ts`],
                },
            },
        ],
    },
});

2. Creating one throwaway database for all test files

Here, the idea is to spin up a database on a running PostgreSQL instance and clean it up between all tests.

The project in the Vitest config looks like this:

                test: {
                    name: 'Integration Tests',
                    include: [`**/*.int-test.ts`],
                    env: loadEnv('test', process.cwd(), ''),
                    globalSetup: 'src/shared/test/globalSetup.ts',
                    setupFiles: 'src/shared/test/clearDb.ts',
                    fileParallelism: false,
                },

There are two important things here:

Environment variables are loaded from .env.test which contains the connection to the PostgreSQL instance. These will then be available to the tests, see: https://vitest.dev/config/env and https://vitest.dev/guide/features#environment-variables. (Locally you can use the same instance that you use for running the app, you just need to set PGDATABASE to a different name.)
fileParellelism is set to false. Running the test files in parallel on the same database is unreliable because of missing isolation.

In globalSetup the test database is created and then the schema is pushed to it. (You need two pools, the first to create the database and the second to connect to it.)

// This name must be the same as PGDATABASE in .env.test
const testDbName = `cinesmall-test`;

export async function setup() {
    process.loadEnvFile();

    const pool1 = new Pool();
    await pool1.query(`CREATE DATABASE "${testDbName}";`);
    await pool1.end();

    const pool2 = new Pool({ database: testDbName });
    const db = drizzle({ client: pool2, relations: schema.relations });
    await (await pushSchema(schema, db)).apply();
    await pool2.end();
}

export async function teardown() {
    const pool = new Pool();
    await pool.query(`DROP DATABASE "${testDbName}";`);
    await pool.end();
}

Because of the above mentioned env config, all tests will use this database. The setupFile just adds an afterEach to clear the database between each test.

afterEach(() => {
    reset(db, schema);
});

3. Creating a throwaway database for each test file

As mentioned above you need to run test files sequentially when using a single database for all. This is not the case when you create a distinct database for each test file.

The database is created in the setupFile. The name of the database must be unique among all test files running in parallel. Using UUIDs is an easy way to achieve this.

process.loadEnvFile();

const dbName = `cinesmall-test-${crypto.randomUUID()}`;

const adminPool = new Pool();
await adminPool.query(`CREATE DATABASE "${dbName}";`);

const testPool = new Pool({ database: dbName });
const db = drizzle({ client: testPool, relations: schema.relations });
await (await pushSchema(schema, db)).apply();

// Inspired by https://github.com/drizzle-team/drizzle-orm/issues/4205
vi.doMock(import('../db/index.js'), async () => ({ db }));

afterEach(async () => {
    await reset(db, schema);
});

afterAll(async () => {
    await testPool.end();
    await adminPool.query(`DROP DATABASE "${dbName}";`);
    await adminPool.end();
});

Unlike in the previous approach and similar to the PGlite approach, the drizzle instance is mocked with an instance that is connected to the throwaway database.

4. Creating a throwaway database from a template for each test file

In PostgreSQL it is possible to create databases from custom templates. A colleague suspected this could be faster than pushing the schema to each throwaway database.

In globalSetup such a template database is created and the schema is pushed to it:

const templateDbName = 'cinesmall-test-template';

export async function setup() {
    process.loadEnvFile();

    const pool1 = new Pool();
    await pool1.query(`CREATE DATABASE "${templateDbName}";`);
    await pool1.end();

    const pool2 = new Pool({ database: templateDbName });
    const db = drizzle({ client: pool2, relations: schema.relations });
    await (await pushSchema(schema, db)).apply();
    await pool2.end();
}

// ...

Then in the setupFile the throwaway database is created from this template:

process.loadEnvFile();

const dbName = `cinesmall-test-${crypto.randomUUID()}`;

const adminPool = new Pool();
await adminPool.query(`CREATE DATABASE "${dbName}" TEMPLATE "cinesmall-test-template";`);

const testPool = new Pool({ database: dbName });
const db = drizzle({ client: testPool, relations: schema.relations });

// Inspired by https://github.com/drizzle-team/drizzle-orm/issues/4205
vi.doMock(import('../db/index.js'), async () => ({ db }));

// ...

The rest works just the same as in the third approach.

Performance comparison

For the measurements it was important to be aware of Vitest's handling of parallelism, especially that "By default, Vitest runs test files in parallel across multiple workers." In the second approach tests have to run sequentially but for the others it is sensible to make use of parallelism. To make the measurements more reliable I set maxWorkers because otherwise Vitest asks the OS for available parallelism and that can vary depending on what your machine is doing besides. I set it to 4 because this seemed low enough that my machine is always capable of handling it and also high enough to see an impact compared to running the tests sequentially.

I created 20 copies of clean.int-test.ts (which I didn't commit) to have a more realistic number of test files and to increase the impact of database setup on the duration.

Since the durations of the tests are pretty consistent, I just paste one example per approach.

1. PGlite database per test file

 Test Files  25 passed (25)
      Tests  32 passed (32)
   Start at  11:56:23
   Duration  48.91s (setup 98%, tests 1%)

2. Global throwaway database

 Test Files  25 passed (25)
      Tests  32 passed (32)
   Start at  12:02:04
   Duration  12.47s (setup 83%, tests 11%, transform 4%, import 1%, worker 1%)

3. Throwaway database per test file

 Test Files  25 passed (25)
      Tests  32 passed (32)
   Start at  12:04:01
   Duration  8.85s (setup 76%, tests 20%, transform 2%, import 1%)

4. Throwaway database per test file created from template

 Test Files  25 passed (25)
      Tests  32 passed (32)
   Start at  12:06:06
   Duration  7.25s (setup 63%, tests 33%, transform 2%, import 1%, worker 1%)

Conclusion

It turns out that creating one throwaway database per test file on a running PostgreSQL instance is the best solution. It is way faster than spinning up a PGlite database for each test file and also considerably faster than running test files sequentially on a single database.

It further turned out that creating the database from a template is indeed faster than pushing the schema each time.

DEV Community: dyedwiper