Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: FSM search modes

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: "Kevin Grittner" <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov>
Cc: "Simon Riggs" <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com>, "Alvaro Herrera" <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, "decibel" <decibel(at)decibel(dot)org>, "Itagaki Takahiro" <itagaki(dot)takahiro(at)oss(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp>, "pgsql-hackers" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: FSM search modes
Date: 2009-10-01 18:55:18
Message-ID: 1412.1254423318@sss.pgh.pa.us (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers
"Kevin Grittner" <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov> writes:
> Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>> So for example we might try resetting the search to the start of the
>> relation with probability 0.01.
 
> If I understand the heuristic you propose, and my math skill haven't
> eroded too badly from lack of use, every 229 spots considered would
> cause a 90% chance of reset.

Sorry, I wasn't clear.  What I was thinking of was that we'd consider
resetting the search position once, upon entry to fsm_search, and then
search normally thereafter.  Some experimentation would be needed to
choose the right probability of course.  A number like 0.01 might seem
too small to affect the behavior at all, but that's what we thought
about the btree case too.  A very light thumb upon the scales may be
sufficient.

			regards, tom lane

In response to

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Boszormenyi ZoltanDate: 2009-10-01 19:05:55
Subject: Re: CommitFest 2009-09, two weeks on
Previous:From: Kevin GrittnerDate: 2009-10-01 18:36:34
Subject: Re: FSM search modes

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2013 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group