Bitmap index status

From: Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>
To: jzhang(at)greenplum(dot)com, swm(at)linuxworld(dot)com(dot)au
Cc: PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Bitmap index status
Date: 2006-09-12 09:43:48
Message-ID: 45068154.4010405@enterprisedb.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Hi,

What's the status of the bitmap index patch? Have you worked on it since
the last posted patch
(http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-patches/2006-08/msg00003.php)?

I've started to review it, to get it into CVS early in the 8.3 cycle. I
just want to make sure that I'm working on the latest version.

Beside the issues already discussed, I found two minor bugs:
* pg_am says that bitmap am supports unique indexes, while it doesn't.
Second,
* race condition in _bitmap_inserttuple if two backends try to insert
the same, new value. If they both find that there's no lov item for the
key, and try to create one, one backend will get a duplicate key error
on the lov index.

Also, vacuum actually does a reindex, which seems awfully wasteful. That
needs to be looked at.

--
Heikki Linnakangas
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Gregory Stark 2006-09-12 09:53:51 Re: Optimizer improvements: to do or not to do?
Previous Message Gregory Stark 2006-09-12 09:07:16 Re: Buildfarm vs. Linux Distro classification