| 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
| 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 |