Re: [WIP] Effective storage of duplicates in B-tree index.

From: Anastasia Lubennikova <a(dot)lubennikova(at)postgrespro(dot)ru>
To: David Steele <david(at)pgmasters(dot)net>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: [WIP] Effective storage of duplicates in B-tree index.
Date: 2016-03-15 17:36:52
Message-ID: 56E84834.2070003@postgrespro.ru
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

14.03.2016 16:02, David Steele:
> Hi Anastasia,
>
> On 2/18/16 12:29 PM, Anastasia Lubennikova wrote:
>> 18.02.2016 20:18, Anastasia Lubennikova:
>>> 04.02.2016 20:16, Peter Geoghegan:
>>>> On Fri, Jan 29, 2016 at 8:50 AM, Anastasia Lubennikova
>>>> <a(dot)lubennikova(at)postgrespro(dot)ru> wrote:
>>>>> I fixed it in the new version (attached).
>>>
>>> Thank you for the review.
>>> At last, there is a new patch version 3.0. After some refactoring it
>>> looks much better.
>>> I described all details of the compression in this document
>>> https://goo.gl/50O8Q0 (the same text without pictures is attached in
>>> btc_readme_1.0.txt).
>>> Consider it as a rough copy of readme. It contains some notes about
>>> tricky moments of implementation and questions about future work.
>>> Please don't hesitate to comment it.
>>>
>> Sorry, previous patch was dirty. Hotfix is attached.
>
> This looks like an extremely valuable optimization for btree indexes
> but unfortunately it is not getting a lot of attention. It still
> applies cleanly for anyone interested in reviewing.
>

Thank you for attention.
I would be indebted to all reviewers, who can just try this patch on
real data and workload (except WAL for now).
B-tree needs very much testing.

> It's not clear to me that you answered all of Peter's questions in
> [1]. I understand that you've provided a README but it may not be
> clear if the answers are in there (and where).

I described in README all the points Peter asked.
But I see that it'd be better to answer directly.
Thanks for reminding, I'll do it tomorrow.

> Also, at the end of the README it says:
>
> 13. Xlog. TODO.
>
> Does that mean the patch is not yet complete?

Yes, you're right.
Frankly speaking, I supposed that someone will help me with that stuff,
but now I almost completed it. I'll send updated patch in the next letter.

I'm still doubtful about some patch details. I mentioned them in readme
(bold type).
But they are mostly about future improvements.

--
Anastasia Lubennikova
Postgres Professional: http://www.postgrespro.com
The Russian Postgres Company

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Robert Haas 2016-03-15 17:38:10 Re: Add numeric_trim(numeric)
Previous Message Joshua D. Drake 2016-03-15 17:35:12 Re: Soliciting Feedback on Improving Server-Side Programming Documentation