From: | Greg Smith <greg(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | gaurav gupta <gauravkumar(dot)gupta(at)students(dot)iiit(dot)ac(dot)in> |
Cc: | xzilla(at)users(dot)sourceforge(dot)net, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: GSoC Query |
Date: | 2010-03-29 07:00:21 |
Message-ID: | 4BB05005.3050007@2ndquadrant.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
gaurav gupta wrote:
> My idea is to add a functionality of Auto tuning and Auto Indexing/
> Reindexing in DB languages.
Ah, the classic request to start with the tuning and index wizards.
Really fun to work on, always lots of interest in it. Here's the
thing: projects in this area attract endless interest. If it were
possible to write something useful in a couple of months, we'd have a
hundred such programs fighting for attention. So the fact that we
actually have zero of them should tell you something about the actual
difficultly level of the work. You could spend the whole summer just
reading research papers on this topic and maybe catch up to the late
90's by the end.
Here's the usual advice I give to students looking to make a useful
contribution to any mature development project: the more boring the
work sounds, the more likely it is you'll actually do something people
can use. It's easy to find people who want to work on fun projects--so
easy that they've all been done already. What's left is either much
harder than it looks, or kind of dull to do. The idea behind
intentionally picking a boring one is that you're more likely to get one
that's unfinished for that reason, rather than because it's actually a
year or two of work to complete. Or, in the case you're asking about, a
decade or three if you were to start from scratch and were really
smart. If you started working on this now rather than stopping to
follow the research already done you might catch up to
http://portal.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=810505 in a couple of months.
> Similarly using the no. of select hits on a table we can check that if
> maximum no. of times it is on a non-index field we can index on that
> field to make select faster.
It's impractical to figure out where indexes should go at without
simulating what the optimizer would then do with them against a sample
set of queries. You can't do anything useful just with basic statistics
about the tables.
I would recommend
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/aa226167(SQL.70).aspx as a good,
practical introduction to the topic of what it takes to figure out where
indexes go at, from someone who came up with a reasonable solution to
that problem. You can find a list of the underlying research they cite
(and an idea what has been done since then) at
http://portal.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=673646
--
Greg Smith 2ndQuadrant US Baltimore, MD
PostgreSQL Training, Services and Support
greg(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com www.2ndQuadrant.us
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Simon Riggs | 2010-03-29 08:15:10 | Re: More idle thoughts |
Previous Message | Dimitri Fontaine | 2010-03-29 06:54:19 | Re: join removal |