* Tom Lane (tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us) wrote:
> Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> writes:
> > On Tue, Mar 14, 2017 at 2:14 PM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> >> Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> writes:
> >>> It's become pretty clear to me that there are a bunch of other things
> >>> about hash indexes which are not exactly great, the worst of which is
> >>> the way they grow by DOUBLING IN SIZE.
>
> >> Uh, what? Growth should happen one bucket-split at a time.
>
> > Technically, the buckets are created one at a time, but because of the
> > way hashm_spares works, the primary bucket pages for all bucket from
> > 2^N to 2^{N+1}-1 must be physically consecutive. See
> > _hash_alloc_buckets.
>
> Right, but we only fill those pages one at a time.
>
> It's true that as soon as we need another overflow page, that's going to
> get dropped beyond the 2^{N+1}-1 point, and the *apparent* size of the
> index will grow quite a lot. But any modern filesystem should handle
> that without much difficulty by treating the index as a sparse file.
Uh, last I heard we didn't allow or want sparse files in the backend
because then we have to handle a possible out-of-disk-space failure on
every write.
If we think they're ok to do, it'd be awful nice to figure out a way for
VACUUM to turn an entirely-empty 1G chunk into a sparse file..
> There may be some work to be done in places like pg_basebackup to
> recognize and deal with sparse files, but it doesn't seem like a
> reason to panic.
Well, and every file-based backup tool out there..
Thanks!
Stephen
