On Mon, 4 Dec 2006, Simon Riggs wrote:
> On Tue, 2006-12-05 at 00:18 +1100, Gavin Sherry wrote:
> > o Determine if we need to provide anything for rm_startup, rm_cleanup,
> > rm_safe_restartpoint RmgrData function pointers.
> safe_restartpoint gives true/false based upon whether there are
> multi-record WAL states that have only been partially received. For
> example, a btree index split needs multiple WAL records as it recurses
> up the index tree. If you've got one record but not the others yet you
> have an incomplete state and so cannot safely write a restartpoint.
> I'll document that if you/anyone might suggest where the best place is?
> > o Look into adding an AM option such that the user can determine word size
> > at index creation time. For higher-cardinality data (above 1000 distinct
> > values), 16 bit word sizes can really help with performance. Although
> > the word size is not just assumed to be a certain size across the code,
> > macros are used extensively to interact with the word size. Making it
> > different for each index might be a little messy.
> ...and is is it a typical case to have a bitmap with less than 1000
> distinct values?? Surely we want that as the sole assumption?
> Nearly unique bitmaps can suffer a little I think, if it makes the most
> common case faster. But I'd like to see the perf results first, I guess.
I'll put together some performance data on different word sizes.
In response to
pgsql-patches by date
|Next:||From: Gavin Sherry||Date: 2006-12-05 01:52:01|
|Subject: Re: On-disk bitmap index implementation|
|Previous:||From: Bruce Momjian||Date: 2006-12-04 22:26:37|
|Subject: Re: win32.mak patch of pg_dump.|