From: | Andrew Borodin <borodin(at)octonica(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com> |
Cc: | PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Vladimir Borodin <root(at)simply(dot)name> |
Subject: | Re: Review: GIN non-intrusive vacuum of posting tree |
Date: | 2017-01-25 07:09:37 |
Message-ID: | CAJEAwVH_d+OQx_uFGy2Ki3NkOASFxz7i8WqFXgcQogqBCNzvPQ@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
2017-01-24 22:29 GMT+05:00 Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com>:
> On Tue, Jan 24, 2017 at 3:18 AM, Andrew Borodin <borodin(at)octonica(dot)com> wrote:
>> Technically, approach of locking a subtree is not novel. Lehman and
>> Yao focused on "that any process for manipulating the tree uses only a
>> small (constant) number of locks at any time." We are locking unknown
>> and possibly large amount of pages.
>
> By the way, can you show me where the Lehman and Yao paper addresses
> page recycling?
>
> It says that one approach is to allow fewer than K entries on a leaf
> node; presumably as few as zero. But it doesn't seem to show how to
> remove all references to the page and recycle it in a new place in the
> tree.
>
> Regards,
> Jeff Davis
Here J. Hellerstein comments L&Y paper [1] saying that effectively
there is no deletion algorithm provided.
Here [2] is paper referenced from nbtree docs. I'll check if this is
applicable to GIN B-tree.
[1] http://db.cs.berkeley.edu/jmh/cs262b/treeCCR.html
[2] http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=324589
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Fabien COELHO | 2017-01-25 07:19:20 | Re: pgbench more operators & functions |
Previous Message | Craig Ringer | 2017-01-25 07:03:30 | Re: I could not see any row in audit table |