Re: [PoC] Improve dead tuple storage for lazy vacuum

From: Masahiko Sawada <sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: John Naylor <john(dot)naylor(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>
Cc: Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, Matthias van de Meent <boekewurm+postgres(at)gmail(dot)com>, Yura Sokolov <y(dot)sokolov(at)postgrespro(dot)ru>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: [PoC] Improve dead tuple storage for lazy vacuum
Date: 2022-05-25 02:48:16
Message-ID: CAD21AoCfwP6GsnoOuQ=dCAXQV65JQBv84t65t+RaQ6fBdqzYKQ@mail.gmail.com
Views: Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Tue, May 10, 2022 at 6:58 PM John Naylor
<john(dot)naylor(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> wrote:
>
> On Tue, May 10, 2022 at 8:52 AM Masahiko Sawada <sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> >
> > Overall, radix tree implementations have good numbers. Once we got an
> > agreement on moving in this direction, I'll start a new thread for
> > that and move the implementation further; there are many things to do
> > and discuss: deletion, API design, SIMD support, more tests etc.
>
> +1
>

Thanks!

I've attached an updated version patch. It is still WIP but I've
implemented deletion and improved test cases and comments.

> (FWIW, I think the current thread is still fine.)

Okay, agreed.

Regards,

--
Masahiko Sawada
EDB: https://www.enterprisedb.com/

Attachment Content-Type Size
radixtree_wip_v2.patch application/octet-stream 61.5 KB

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Amit Langote 2022-05-25 03:00:47 Re: First draft of the PG 15 release notes
Previous Message Thomas Munro 2022-05-25 02:47:41 HOLD_INTERRUPTS() vs ProcSignalBarrier