Re: GiST VACUUM

From: Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka(at)iki(dot)fi>
To: Andrey Borodin <x4mmm(at)yandex-team(dot)ru>
Cc: Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Костя Кузнецов <chapaev28(at)ya(dot)ru>
Subject: Re: GiST VACUUM
Date: 2018-08-05 11:18:59
Message-ID: 43f15ab5-dd95-97d4-658b-e9954ca986a6@iki.fi
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On 31/07/18 23:06, Andrey Borodin wrote:
>> On a typical GiST index, what's the ratio of leaf vs. internal
>> pages? Perhaps an array would indeed be better.
>
> Typical GiST has around 200 tuples per internal page. I've switched
> to List since it's more efficient than bitmap.

Hmm. A ListCell is 16 bytes, plus the AllocChunk header, 16 bytes. 32
bytes per internal page in total, while a bitmap consumes one bit per
page, leaf or internal. If I'm doing
my math right, assuming the ratio of leaf pages vs internal pages is
1:200, a List actually consumes more memory than a bitmap; 256 bits per
internal page, vs. 200 bits. An array, with 4 bytes per block number,
would be the winner here.

> But I have to note that default growth strategy of Bitmap is not
> good: we will be repallocing byte by byte.

True, that repallocing seems bad. You could force it to be pre-allocated
by setting the last bit. Or add a function to explicitly enlarge the bitmap.

- Heikki

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Amit Kapila 2018-08-05 12:04:30 Re: Explain buffers wrong counter with parallel plans
Previous Message Heikki Linnakangas 2018-08-05 11:00:04 Re: Negotiating the SCRAM channel binding type