Re: Returning nbtree posting list TIDs in DESC order during backwards scans

From: Victor Yegorov <vyegorov(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie>
Cc: PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Returning nbtree posting list TIDs in DESC order during backwards scans
Date: 2025-12-03 15:18:30
Message-ID: CAGnEboj3=DaCoar=CSiHLwxFP1GhAOsAhhkj0=6JjvgE=q54gQ@mail.gmail.com
Views: Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

ср, 3 дек. 2025 г. в 06:09, Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie>:

> Coming back to this patch now, after several months of work on index
> prefetching.
>
> I decided that it wasn't such a great idea to reuse/steal an unused
> "itemDead" bit from the BTScanPosItem.itemOffset field after all. That
> forces _bt_killitems to iterate through every so->currPos.item[], not
> just those that are known to require LP_DEAD marking.
>
> Tomas Vondra suggested that I keep killedItems as a separate
> allocation (as it is on master), while using a Bitmapset to represent
> killedItems (unlike on master, where it is represented using a simple
> array). This has all of the same advantages as my previous approach,
> but doesn't have the aforementioned disadvantages within _bt_killitems
> (plus we no longer need to change BTScanPosItem in any way).
>
> Attached is v4, which does it that way.
>
> My plan is to commit this improved version in the next couple of days.
>
> --
> Peter Geoghegan
>

Patch looks fine, applies and compiles cleanly, passes tests.

I'd like to point out a missing space after the dot in the 2nd para of the
commit message,
falls out of style.

--
Victor Yegorov

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Mircea Cadariu 2025-12-03 15:20:04 Re: Returning nbtree posting list TIDs in DESC order during backwards scans
Previous Message Andres Freund 2025-12-03 15:17:28 Re: Cleanup shadows variable warnings, round 1