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

From: John Naylor <john(dot)naylor(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>
To: Masahiko Sawada <sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(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: 2022-05-10 09:58:31
Message-ID: CAFBsxsGJXHezeP-zSh0ifvpN_Gj9umcMjFjchhX5v4NC3BakUg@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

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

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

--
John Naylor
EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Mahendra Singh Thalor 2022-05-10 11:19:04 Re: Collecting statistics about contents of JSONB columns
Previous Message Simon Riggs 2022-05-10 09:42:59 Re: Hash index build performance tweak from sorting