Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: On-disk bitmap index implementation

From: Gavin Sherry <swm(at)linuxworld(dot)com(dot)au>
To: Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
Cc: pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org, Jie Zhang <jzhang(at)greenplum(dot)com>
Subject: Re: On-disk bitmap index implementation
Date: 2006-12-05 00:10:42
Message-ID: (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Lists: pgsql-patches
On Mon, 4 Dec 2006, Simon Riggs wrote:

> On Tue, 2006-12-05 at 00:18 +1100, Gavin Sherry wrote:
> > o Determine if we need to provide anything for rm_startup, rm_cleanup,
> >   rm_safe_restartpoint RmgrData function pointers.
> safe_restartpoint gives true/false based upon whether there are
> multi-record WAL states that have only been partially received. For
> example, a btree index split needs multiple WAL records as it recurses
> up the index tree. If you've got one record but not the others yet you
> have an incomplete state and so cannot safely write a restartpoint.
> I'll document that if you/anyone might suggest where the best place is?

transam/README ?

> > o Look into adding an AM option such that the user can determine word size
> >   at index creation time. For higher-cardinality data (above 1000 distinct
> >   values), 16 bit word sizes can really help with performance. Although
> >   the word size is not just assumed to be a certain size across the code,
> >   macros are used extensively to interact with the word size. Making it
> >   different for each index might be a little messy.
> ...and is is it a typical case to have a bitmap with less than 1000
> distinct values?? Surely we want that as the sole assumption?
> Nearly unique bitmaps can suffer a little I think, if it makes the most
> common case faster. But I'd like to see the perf results first, I guess.

I'll put together some performance data on different word sizes.



In response to

pgsql-patches by date

Next:From: Gavin SherryDate: 2006-12-05 01:52:01
Subject: Re: On-disk bitmap index implementation
Previous:From: Bruce MomjianDate: 2006-12-04 22:26:37
Subject: Re: win32.mak patch of pg_dump.

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2017 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group