|From:||Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>|
|To:||Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>|
|Cc:||Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>|
|Subject:||Re: Minmax indexes|
|Views:||Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email|
Robert Haas escribió:
> On Wed, Sep 25, 2013 at 4:34 PM, Alvaro Herrera
> <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
> > Here's an updated version of this patch, with fixes to all the bugs
> > reported so far. Thanks to Thom Brown, Jaime Casanova, Erik Rijkers and
> > Amit Kapila for the reports.
> I'm not very happy with the use of a separate relation fork for
> storing this data.
I understand this opinion, as I considered it myself while developing
it. Also, GIN already does things this way. Perhaps I should just bite
the bullet and do this.
> Using an existing fork number rather than creating
> a new one avoids some of them (like, the fact that we loop over all
> known fork numbers in various places, and adding another one will add
> latency in all of those places, particularly when there is a system
> call in the loop) but not all of them (like, what happens if the index
> is unlogged? we have provisions to reset the main fork but any others
> are just removed; is that OK?), and it also creates some new ones
> (like, files having misleading names).
All good points.
Index scans will normally access the revmap in sequential fashion; it
would be enough to chain revmap pages, keeping a single block number in
the metapage pointing to the first one, and subsequent ones are accessed
from a "next" block number in each page. However, heap insertion might
need to access a random revmap page, and this would be too slow. I
think it would be enough to keep an array of block numbers in the
index's metapage; the metapage would be share locked on every scan and
insert, but that's not a big deal because exclusive lock would only be
needed on the metapage to extend the revmap, which would be a very
As this will require some rework to this code, I think it's fair to mark
this as returned with feedback for the time being. I will return with
an updated version soon, fixing the relation fork issue as well as the
locking and visibility bugs reported by Erik.
Álvaro Herrera http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services
|Next Message||Alvaro Herrera||2013-09-26 17:40:43||Re: Minmax indexes|
|Previous Message||Ivan Lezhnjov IV||2013-09-26 17:15:25||Re: backup.sgml-cmd-v003.patch|