Re: Index Skip Scan

From: Dmitry Dolgov <9erthalion6(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie>
Cc: Jesper Pedersen <jesper(dot)pedersen(at)redhat(dot)com>, Floris Van Nee <florisvannee(at)optiver(dot)com>, David Rowley <david(dot)rowley(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Tomas Vondra <tomas(dot)vondra(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Kyotaro Horiguchi <horikyota(dot)ntt(at)gmail(dot)com>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)gmail(dot)com>, James Coleman <jtc331(at)gmail(dot)com>, Rafia Sabih <rafia(dot)pghackers(at)gmail(dot)com>, Jeff Janes <jeff(dot)janes(at)gmail(dot)com>, Bhushan Uparkar <bhushan(dot)uparkar(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Alexander Korotkov <a(dot)korotkov(at)postgrespro(dot)ru>
Subject: Re: Index Skip Scan
Date: 2020-01-21 10:00:08
Message-ID: 20200121100008.bsrrp3rtsfvv3ntq@localhost
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

> On Mon, Jan 20, 2020 at 05:05:33PM -0800, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
>
> I suggest that you find a way to add assertions to code like
> _bt_readpage() that verify that we do in fact have the buffer content
> lock. Actually, there is an existing assertion here that covers the
> pin, but not the buffer content lock:
>
> static bool
> _bt_readpage(IndexScanDesc scan, ScanDirection dir, OffsetNumber offnum)
> {
> <declare variables>
> ...
>
> /*
> * We must have the buffer pinned and locked, but the usual macro can't be
> * used here; this function is what makes it good for currPos.
> */
> Assert(BufferIsValid(so->currPos.buf));
>
> You can add another assertion that calls a new utility function in
> bufmgr.c. That can use the same logic as this existing assertion in
> FlushOneBuffer():
>
> Assert(LWLockHeldByMe(BufferDescriptorGetContentLock(bufHdr)));
>
> We haven't needed assertions like this so far because it's usually it
> is clear whether or not a buffer lock is held (plus the bufmgr.c
> assertions help on their own). The fact that it isn't clear whether or
> not a buffer lock will be held by caller here suggests a problem. Even
> still, having some guard rails in the form of these assertions could
> be helpful. Also, it seems like _bt_scankey_within_page() should have
> a similar set of assertions.

Thanks for suggestion. Agree, we will add such guards. It seems that in
general I need to go through the locking in the patch one more time,
since there are some gaps I din't notice/didn't know about before.

> BTW, there is a paper that describes optimizations like loose index
> scan and skip scan together, in fairly general terms: "Efficient
> Search of Multidimensional B-Trees". Loose index scans are given the
> name "MDAM duplicate elimination" in the paper. See:
>
> http://vldb.org/conf/1995/P710.PDF
>
> Goetz Graefe told me about the paper. It seems like the closest thing
> that exists to a taxonomy or conceptual framework for these
> techniques.

Yes, I've read this paper, as it's indeed the only reference I found
about this topic in literature. But unfortunately it's not much and (at
least from the first read) gives only an overview of the idea.

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Julien Rouhaud 2020-01-21 10:21:20 Re: Planning counters in pg_stat_statements (using pgss_store)
Previous Message Matteo Beccati 2020-01-21 09:55:46 Re: [HACKERS] kqueue