Re: HASH: Out of overflow pages. Out of luck

From: selkovjr(at)xnet(dot)com
To: Hannu Krosing <hannu(at)tm(dot)ee>
Cc: "Gene Selkov, Jr(dot)" <selkovjr(at)xnet(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, selkovjr(at)xnet(dot)com
Subject: Re: HASH: Out of overflow pages. Out of luck
Date: 2002-08-07 05:41:04
Message-ID: 20020807054109.EDB98A13D@selkovjr.xnet.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers


> From: Hannu Krosing <hannu(at)tm(dot)ee>
>
> As BerkelyDB came into being by splitting index methods out of an early
> version of Postgres, it should still have some similar structure left,
> so one possibility is to check what they are doing to not be that bad.
>
> Have you tried to index your dataset into a BerkelyDB database ?

Yes, it works fine with BerkelyDB. I looked at both codes and I was
stupefied with their complexity. Even if there is a similar structure,
it must be very well disguised. Some of the data structures resemble
each other's counterparts; the only piece that is exactly the same
as one of the five BerkelyDB's hash functions.

The only useful experiment that I feel I am capable of making is
trying their __ham_hash5() function, with they claim is generally
better than the other four, for most purposes. But they warn in their
comments that there is no such thing as "a hash function" -- there
must be one for each purpose.

So another experiment I might try is writing an adapter for a
user-supplied hash -- that might help in figuring out the role of the
hash function in bin overflows. That should be easy enough to do, but
fixing or re-writing the access method itself -- I'm sorry: the level
of complexity scares me. Appears like a couple man-months
(those Mythical Man-Months :).

--Gene

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Dave Page 2002-08-07 08:02:33 Re: Open 7.3 items
Previous Message Curt Sampson 2002-08-07 05:30:02 Re: CLUSTER and indisclustered