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

About "Our CLUSTER implementation is pessimal" patch

From: Leonardo F <m_lists(at)yahoo(dot)it>
To: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Cc: stark(at)enterprisedb(dot)com
Subject: About "Our CLUSTER implementation is pessimal" patch
Date: 2010-01-15 11:45:24
Message-ID: 42957.48433.qm@web29016.mail.ird.yahoo.com (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers
Hi,

I read the thread "Our CLUSTER implementation is pessimal" http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2008-08/msg01371.php .

I would like to try/integrate that patch as we use CLUSTER a lot on our system.

I was going to try to add the proper cost_index/cost_sort calls to decide which "path" should be executed, as in:

http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2008-09/msg00517.php

I don't think it will be easy without help... I'll ask here a lot I'm afraid...

About that patch:

1) would it be possible to use the tuplesort_*tupleslot set of functions instead of writing new ones for HeapTuple? That is: is it that difficult/impossible/nonsense to construct TupleTableSlot from HeapTuple and use those?

2) The patch doesn't check "HeapTupleSatisfiesVacuum" before passing it to tuplesort_putrawtuple: would it be reasonable to check the "isdead" flag before calling tuplesort_putrawtuple for each tuple?


Sorry if I talked nonsense...



Leonardo


      

Responses

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Heikki LinnakangasDate: 2010-01-15 12:05:32
Subject: Re: About "Our CLUSTER implementation is pessimal" patch
Previous:From: Heikki LinnakangasDate: 2010-01-15 11:28:05
Subject: Re: New XLOG record indicating WAL-skipping

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group