From: | "Jie Zhang" <jzhang(at)greenplum(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | "Heikki Linnakangas" <heikki(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, swm(at)linuxworld(dot)com(dot)au |
Cc: | "PostgreSQL-development" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Bitmap index status |
Date: | 2006-09-17 08:57:15 |
Message-ID: | C1325BFB.B0A3%jzhang@greenplum.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Hi Heikki and all,
I just sent the latest bitmap index patch to the list. I am not sure if
there is any size limit for this mailing list. If you have received my
previous email, please let me know.
Thanks,
Jie
On 9/12/06 2:43 AM, "Heikki Linnakangas" <heikki(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> What's the status of the bitmap index patch? Have you worked on it since
> the last posted patch
> (http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-patches/2006-08/msg00003.php)?
>
> I've started to review it, to get it into CVS early in the 8.3 cycle. I
> just want to make sure that I'm working on the latest version.
>
> Beside the issues already discussed, I found two minor bugs:
> * pg_am says that bitmap am supports unique indexes, while it doesn't.
> Second,
> * race condition in _bitmap_inserttuple if two backends try to insert
> the same, new value. If they both find that there's no lov item for the
> key, and try to create one, one backend will get a duplicate key error
> on the lov index.
>
> Also, vacuum actually does a reindex, which seems awfully wasteful. That
> needs to be looked at.
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Joachim Wieland | 2006-09-17 09:49:51 | Re: [HACKERS] Timezone List |
Previous Message | Gevik Babakhani | 2006-09-17 07:57:13 | Re: Opinion about macro for the uuid datatype. |