Re: Sparse bit set data structure

From: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka(at)iki(dot)fi>
Cc: pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Andrey Borodin <x4mmm(at)yandex-team(dot)ru>, Claudio Freire <klaussfreire(at)gmail(dot)com>
Subject: Re: Sparse bit set data structure
Date: 2019-03-13 19:48:39
Message-ID: CA+TgmobOWvHzJzFnjDBnoyFt6-x+M8K-PLOLBsX_iFnTCiTi9g@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Wed, Mar 13, 2019 at 3:18 PM Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka(at)iki(dot)fi> wrote:
> I started to consider rewriting the data structure into something more
> like B-tree. Then I remembered that I wrote a data structure pretty much
> like that last year already! We discussed that on the "Vacuum: allow
> usage of more than 1GB of work mem" thread [2], to replace the current
> huge array that holds the dead TIDs during vacuum.
>
> So I dusted off that patch, and made it more general, so that it can be
> used to store arbitrary 64-bit integers, rather than ItemPointers or
> BlockNumbers. I then added a rudimentary form of compression to the leaf
> pages, so that clusters of nearby values can be stored as an array of
> 32-bit integers, or as a bitmap. That would perhaps be overkill, if it
> was just to conserve some memory in GiST vacuum, but I think this will
> turn out to be a useful general-purpose facility.

Yeah, that sounds pretty cool.

--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2019-03-13 20:18:34 Re: hyrax vs. RelationBuildPartitionDesc
Previous Message Robert Haas 2019-03-13 19:47:15 Re: hyrax vs. RelationBuildPartitionDesc