Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: plan time of MASSIVE partitioning ...

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Boszormenyi Zoltan <zb(at)cybertec(dot)at>
Cc: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>, Hans-Jürgen Schönig <postgres(at)cybertec(dot)at>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>
Subject: Re: plan time of MASSIVE partitioning ...
Date: 2010-10-19 20:14:43
Message-ID: (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Lists: pgsql-hackers
Boszormenyi Zoltan <zb(at)cybertec(dot)at> writes:
> The problem is with the two functions in path/equivclass.c,
> as process_equivalance() and those functions are all walk
> the tree, and the current RBTree code can only deal with
> one walk at a time. We need to push/pop the iterator state
> to be able to serve more than one walkers.

Good luck with that --- the iteration state is embedded in the rbtree.

> Also, we need to split out the tree modifying part from
> process_equivalence() somehow, as the tree walking
> also cannot deal with node additions and deletions.

That's not happening either.  Maybe you need to think of some other data
structure to use.  Hashtable maybe?  dynahash.c at least has reasonably
well-defined limitations in this area.

			regards, tom lane

In response to


pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Rob WultschDate: 2010-10-19 20:25:39
Subject: Re: max_wal_senders must die
Previous:From: Stephen R. van den BergDate: 2010-10-19 20:12:23
Subject: pg_rawdump

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2017 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group