From: | Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Melanie Plageman <melanieplageman(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Subject: | Re: why do hash index builds use smgrextend() for new splitpoint pages |
Date: | 2022-02-25 03:24:29 |
Message-ID: | CAA4eK1+e5g9utoXV5K4u5QXfwDm5eF5AXMjQkvY357M3Y9gipA@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, Feb 25, 2022 at 4:41 AM Melanie Plageman
<melanieplageman(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
> I'm trying to understand why hash indexes are built primarily in shared
> buffers except when allocating a new splitpoint's worth of bucket pages
> -- which is done with smgrextend() directly in _hash_alloc_buckets().
>
> Is this just so that the value returned by smgrnblocks() includes the
> new splitpoint's worth of bucket pages?
>
> All writes of tuple data to pages in this new splitpoint will go
> through shared buffers (via hash_getnewbuf()).
>
> I asked this and got some thoughts from Robert in [1], but I still don't
> really get it.
>
> When a new page is needed during the hash index build, why can't
> _hash_expandtable() just call ReadBufferExtended() with P_NEW instead of
> _hash_getnewbuf()? Does it have to do with the BUCKET_TO_BLKNO mapping?
>
We allocate the chunk of pages (power-of-2 groups) at the time of
split which allows them to appear consecutively in an index. This
helps us to compute the physical block number from bucket number
easily (BUCKET_TO_BLKNO mapping) with some minimal control
information.
--
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Amit Kapila | 2022-02-25 03:27:24 | Re: pg_stat_get_replication_slot and pg_stat_get_subscription_worker incorrectly marked as proretset |
Previous Message | Maciek Sakrejda | 2022-02-25 02:03:55 | Re: Add id's to various elements in protocol.sgml |