From: | Manfred Koizar <mkoi-pg(at)aon(dot)at> |
---|---|
To: | Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org, ohp(at)pyrenet(dot)fr, pgsql-hackers list <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: [HACKERS] Index creation takes for ever |
Date: | 2003-12-01 18:17:10 |
Message-ID: | 08umsv0o3mu0kspv28qi9fo1646drcu0qa@email.aon.at |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers pgsql-patches |
On Mon, 1 Dec 2003 00:02:54 -0500 (EST), Bruce Momjian
<pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>Tom Lane wrote:
>> Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:
>> >> And if it doesn't help index
>> >> creation speed, at least the resulting index has better correlation.
... which has been shown by the example in the original message:
> Result without patch:
> ctid
> ----------
> (153,14)
> (306,23)
> (305,80)
> (152,91)
> (76,68)
> (38,34)
> (153,34)
> (305,50)
> (9,62)
> (305,40)
> (10 rows)
>
> Result with patch:
> ctid
> --------
> (0,5)
> (0,10)
> (0,15)
> (0,20)
> (0,25)
> (0,30)
> (0,35)
> (0,40)
> (0,45)
> (0,50)
> (10 rows)
And I think we all agree, that better index correlation leads to better
performance.
>> I think this is a *very* dubious idea. It introduces a low-level
>> implementation dependency into our sort behavior
The patch modifies the static function comparetup_index() in
tuplesort.c.
The comment above this function says
/*
* Routines specialized for IndexTuple case
*
* NOTE: actually, these are specialized for the btree case; [...]
*/
comparetup_index() compares two IndexTuples. The structure
IndexTupleData consists basically of not much more than an ItemPointer,
and the patch is not much more than adding a comparison of two
ItemPointers. So how does the patch introduce a new low level
implementation dependency?
>Roger --- patch removed. Thanks.
Could we agree on only removing the first five a half lines of the
comment in the patch?
Servus
Manfred
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2003-12-01 18:32:10 | Re: [HACKERS] Index creation takes for ever |
Previous Message | Tilo Schwarz | 2003-12-01 17:56:46 | Re: initdb should create a warning message [was Re: |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2003-12-01 18:32:10 | Re: [HACKERS] Index creation takes for ever |
Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2003-12-01 15:53:32 | Re: clock_timestamp() and transaction_timestamp() function |