| From: | Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Teodor Sigaev <teodor(at)sigaev(dot)ru>, Oleg Bartunov <oleg(at)sai(dot)msu(dot)su> |
| Subject: | Re: GiST insert algorithm rewrite |
| Date: | 2010-11-16 18:50:49 |
| Message-ID: | 4CE2D289.8060906@enterprisedb.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 16.11.2010 20:46, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 16, 2010 at 1:22 PM, Heikki Linnakangas
> <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> wrote:
>> BTW, I don't try to fix incomplete splits during vacuum in the patch. That's
>> perhaps a bit surprising, and probably would be easy to add, but I left it
>> out for now as it's not strictly necessary.
>
> Seems like it would be good to have this; otherwise, the split might
> stay incompletely indefinitely? Would that be bad?
Nothing bad should happen. Scans that need to traverse the incompletely
split page would just be marginally slower.
> If we start to enlarge the bounding boxes on the higher levels of the
> tree and then crash before inserting the key, is there any mechanism
> for getting them back down to the minimal size?
No. There's also no mechanism for trimming the bounding boxes if a tuple
is deleted.
--
Heikki Linnakangas
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Josh Berkus | 2010-11-16 18:52:14 | Re: autovacuum maintenance_work_mem |
| Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2010-11-16 18:46:24 | Re: GiST insert algorithm rewrite |