Re: Review: GIN non-intrusive vacuum of posting tree

From: Andrew Borodin <borodin(at)octonica(dot)com>
To: Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com>
Cc: PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Vladimir Borodin <root(at)simply(dot)name>
Subject: Re: Review: GIN non-intrusive vacuum of posting tree
Date: 2017-01-25 07:09:37
Message-ID: CAJEAwVH_d+OQx_uFGy2Ki3NkOASFxz7i8WqFXgcQogqBCNzvPQ@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

2017-01-24 22:29 GMT+05:00 Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com>:
> On Tue, Jan 24, 2017 at 3:18 AM, Andrew Borodin <borodin(at)octonica(dot)com> wrote:
>> Technically, approach of locking a subtree is not novel. Lehman and
>> Yao focused on "that any process for manipulating the tree uses only a
>> small (constant) number of locks at any time." We are locking unknown
>> and possibly large amount of pages.
>
> By the way, can you show me where the Lehman and Yao paper addresses
> page recycling?
>
> It says that one approach is to allow fewer than K entries on a leaf
> node; presumably as few as zero. But it doesn't seem to show how to
> remove all references to the page and recycle it in a new place in the
> tree.
>
> Regards,
> Jeff Davis

Here J. Hellerstein comments L&Y paper [1] saying that effectively
there is no deletion algorithm provided.
Here [2] is paper referenced from nbtree docs. I'll check if this is
applicable to GIN B-tree.

[1] http://db.cs.berkeley.edu/jmh/cs262b/treeCCR.html
[2] http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=324589

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Fabien COELHO 2017-01-25 07:19:20 Re: pgbench more operators & functions
Previous Message Craig Ringer 2017-01-25 07:03:30 Re: I could not see any row in audit table