| From: | David Geier <geidav(dot)pg(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | John Naylor <johncnaylorls(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: use radix tree for bitmap heap scan |
| Date: | 2026-10-13 23:20:28 |
| Message-ID: | abe04a29-333a-4e40-81a3-4b5236861385@gmail.com |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
> It would be great if we could overcome this bottleneck as well with the
> radix tree approach. Together with [1] and [2] this would further close
> the gap compared to plain vanilla index scan.
>
> [1]
> https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/flat/CAPsAnrn5yWsoWs8GhqwbwAJx1SeLxLntV54Biq0Z-J_E86Fnng%40mail.gmail.com
> [2]
> https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/29f27b97-b3d7-476b-acae-832b3443b0c4%40gmail.com
I missed [3] which is yet another improvement to reduce the overhead of
BIS. For overview purposes we have:
1. Parallelizing Bitmap Index Scan and Bitmap And/Or
2. Optimizing the block sort via sort_template.h
3. Improving TID insertion performance by batching
4. Using radix tree instead of simplehash.h in TIDBitmap
--
David Geier
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Previous Message | Masahiko Sawada | 2026-10-13 23:16:27 | Re: Parallel autovacuum: DROP DATABASE WITH (FORCE) fails on the parallel workers |