From: | Alexander Korotkov <aekorotkov(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnakangas(at)vmware(dot)com> |
Cc: | pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: GIN improvements part 1: additional information |
Date: | 2013-09-16 08:05:06 |
Message-ID: | CAPpHfds3QRf91-ubhHKrRg-MVKKzUoL=Zaqt-_OTM74j9ZZRAw@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, Sep 16, 2013 at 11:43 AM, Heikki Linnakangas <
hlinnakangas(at)vmware(dot)com> wrote:
> On 15.09.2013 12:14, Alexander Korotkov wrote:
>
>> On Sat, Jun 29, 2013 at 12:56 PM, Heikki Linnakangas<
>> hlinnakangas(at)vmware(dot)com> wrote:
>>
>> There's a few open questions:
>>>
>>> 1. How are we going to handle pg_upgrade? It would be nice to be able to
>>> read the old page format, or convert on-the-fly. OTOH, if it gets too
>>> complicated, might not be worth it. The indexes are much smaller with the
>>> patch, so anyone using GIN probably wants to rebuild them anyway, sooner
>>> or
>>> later. Still, I'd like to give it a shot.
>>>
>>> 2. The patch introduces a small fixed 32-entry index into the packed
>>> items. Is that an optimal number?
>>>
>>> 3. I'd like to see some performance testing of insertions, deletions, and
>>> vacuum. I suspect that maintaining the 32-entry index might be fairly
>>> expensive, as it's rewritten on every update to a leaf page.
>>>
>>
>> It appears that maintaining 32-entry index is really expensive because it
>> required re-decoding whole page. This issue is fixed in attached version
>> of
>> patch by introducing incremental updating of that index. Benchmarks will
>> be
>> posted later today..
>>
>
> Great! Please also benchmark WAL replay; you're still doing
> non-incremental update of the 32-entry index in ginRedoInsert.
>
> A couple of quick comments after a quick glance (in addition to the above):
>
> The varbyte encoding stuff is a quite isolated piece of functionality. And
> potentially useful elsewhere, too. It would be good to separate that into a
> separate .c/.h files. I'm thinking of src/backend/access/gin/**packeditemptr.c,
> which would contain ginDataPageLeafReadItemPointer**,
> ginDataPageLeafWriteItemPointe**r and ginDataPageLeafGetItemPointerS**ize
> functions. A new typedef for varbyte-encoded things would probably be good
> too, something like "typedef char *PackedItemPointer". In the new .c file,
> please also add a file-header comment explaining the encoding.
>
> The README really needs to be updated. The posting tree page structure is
> a lot more complicated now, there needs to be a whole new section to
> explain it. A picture would be nice, similar to the one in bufpage.h.
>
> It's a bit funny that we've clumped together all different kinds of GIN
> insertions into one WAL record type. ginRedoInsert does completely
> different things depending on what kind of a page it is. And the
> ginXlogInsert struct also contains different kinds of things depending on
> what kind of an insertion it is. It would be cleaner to split it into
> three. (this isn't your patch's fault - it was like that before, too.)
Apparently some bugs breaks index on huge updates independent on
incremental update of the 32-entry. I'm in debugging now. That's why
benchmarks are delayed.
------
With best regards,
Alexander Korotkov.
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Heikki Linnakangas | 2013-09-16 08:15:28 | Re: patch: add MAP_HUGETLB to mmap() where supported (WIP) |
Previous Message | Heikki Linnakangas | 2013-09-16 07:43:30 | Re: GIN improvements part 1: additional information |