Re: [WIP] Effective storage of duplicates in B-tree index. - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Anastasia Lubennikova
Subject Re: [WIP] Effective storage of duplicates in B-tree index.
Date
Msg-id 56E84834.2070003@postgrespro.ru
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: [WIP] Effective storage of duplicates in B-tree index.  (David Steele <david@pgmasters.net>)
Responses Re: [WIP] Effective storage of duplicates in B-tree index.  (Anastasia Lubennikova <a.lubennikova@postgrespro.ru>)
List pgsql-hackers
14.03.2016 16:02, David Steele:
> Hi Anastasia,
>
> On 2/18/16 12:29 PM, Anastasia Lubennikova wrote:
>> 18.02.2016 20:18, Anastasia Lubennikova:
>>> 04.02.2016 20:16, Peter Geoghegan:
>>>> On Fri, Jan 29, 2016 at 8:50 AM, Anastasia Lubennikova
>>>> <a.lubennikova@postgrespro.ru>  wrote:
>>>>> I fixed it in the new version (attached).
>>>
>>> Thank you for the review.
>>> At last, there is a new patch version 3.0. After some refactoring it
>>> looks much better.
>>> I described all details of the compression in this document
>>> https://goo.gl/50O8Q0 (the same text without pictures is attached in
>>> btc_readme_1.0.txt).
>>> Consider it as a rough copy of readme. It contains some notes about
>>> tricky moments of implementation and questions about future work.
>>> Please don't hesitate to comment it.
>>>
>> Sorry, previous patch was dirty. Hotfix is attached.
>
> This looks like an extremely valuable optimization for btree indexes 
> but unfortunately it is not getting a lot of attention. It still 
> applies cleanly for anyone interested in reviewing.
>

Thank you for attention.
I would be indebted to all reviewers, who can just try this patch on 
real data and workload (except WAL for now).
B-tree needs very much testing.

> It's not clear to me that you answered all of Peter's questions in 
> [1].  I understand that you've provided a README but it may not be 
> clear if the answers are in there (and where).

I described in README all the points Peter asked.
But I see that it'd be better to answer directly.
Thanks for reminding, I'll do it tomorrow.

> Also, at the end of the README it says:
>
> 13. Xlog. TODO.
>
> Does that mean the patch is not yet complete?

Yes, you're right.
Frankly speaking, I supposed that someone will help me with that stuff,
but now I almost completed it. I'll send updated patch in the next letter.

I'm still doubtful about some patch details. I mentioned them in readme 
(bold type).
But they are mostly about future improvements.

-- 
Anastasia Lubennikova
Postgres Professional: http://www.postgrespro.com
The Russian Postgres Company




pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: "Joshua D. Drake"
Date:
Subject: Re: Soliciting Feedback on Improving Server-Side Programming Documentation
Next
From: Robert Haas
Date:
Subject: Re: Add numeric_trim(numeric)