Re: Proposal: Global Index

From: Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>
To: Jeremy Schneider <schnjere(at)amazon(dot)com>
Cc: Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Ibrar Ahmed <ibrar(dot)ahmad(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Amit Langote <amitlangote09(at)gmail(dot)com>, Hamid Akhtar <hamid(dot)akhtar(at)gmail(dot)com>, "heikki(dot)linnakangas" <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)iki(dot)fi>
Subject: Re: Proposal: Global Index
Date: 2019-12-19 03:03:28
Message-ID: 20191219030328.GI30116@momjian.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Mon, Nov 25, 2019 at 03:44:39PM -0800, Jeremy Schneider wrote:
> On 11/25/19 15:05, Jeremy Schneider wrote:
> > ... the cost of doing the individual index lookups across 180
> > partitions (and 180 indexes) was very high, so they stored max and min
> > txn id per partition and would generate a query with all the dates that
> > a txn id could have been in so that only a small number of partition
> > indexes would be accessed.
> >
> > .. If we are looking for higher concurrency, we can usually
> > add a hack/workaround that filters on a partition key to provide “pretty
> > good” pruning. The net result is that you get 2-3x the IO due to the
> > lack of global index (same workaround as first story above).
>
> Is that basically like a global BRIN index with granularity at the
> partition level?

Exactly! :-)

--
Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> http://momjian.us
EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com

+ As you are, so once was I. As I am, so you will be. +
+ Ancient Roman grave inscription +

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Masahiko Sawada 2019-12-19 03:07:55 Re: [HACKERS] Block level parallel vacuum
Previous Message Dilip Kumar 2019-12-19 02:52:59 Re: [HACKERS] Block level parallel vacuum