Re: Fast insertion indexes: why no developments - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Simon Riggs
Subject Re: Fast insertion indexes: why no developments
Date
Msg-id CA+U5nMKoky+gBa0bgjyW-zWi1okJt3rFQJHnBHMXNBvfYKZh0w@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Fast insertion indexes: why no developments  (Leonardo Francalanci <m_lists@yahoo.it>)
Responses Re: Fast insertion indexes: why no developments  (Leonardo Francalanci <m_lists@yahoo.it>)
Re: Fast insertion indexes: why no developments  (Yann Fontana <yann.fontana@gmail.com>)
Re: Fast insertion indexes: why no developments  (Claudio Freire <klaussfreire@gmail.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
On 30 October 2013 11:23, Leonardo Francalanci <m_lists@yahoo.it> wrote:
>> What is the reason for needing such fast access to individual groups
>> of records? Sure sounds like the NSA or similar ;-)
>
>
> Users need to search all calls originated from/to a user or from/to a specific mobile phone to answer/analyze
customers'probl... ok, I give up: I work for the NSA ;) 
>
>> In terms of generality, do you think its worth a man year of developer
>> effort to replicate what you have already achieved? Who would pay?
>
>
> 1) I haven't achieved what I need: realtime indexing. I can't query the "current 15 minutes" table efficiently. Plus,
K*log(N)is not that great when you have a lot of K. 
> 2) I'm not suggesting that this is top priority. I'm asking if there's something else, other than "we don't have time
forthis", that I don't know. In fact, I don't even know if those indexes types would really help in my (specific) case.
That'swhy my original question was "why aren't there developments in this area": I didn't mean to imply someone should
doit. I just wanted to know if those indexes were already discussed (and maybe dismissed for some reason) in the
past...

OK, I understand now.

LSM-trees seem patent free, since open source implementations exist.
The main concept is to partition the index into multiple trees, so
that the current insertion sub-tree fits more easily in memory.  That
sounds good and was exactly the solution I'd come up with as well,
which is a good cross check. It leads to a slow increase in index
response times, but we could offset that by having minimum values on
each subtree and using partitioning logic as with a minmax index.

LSM-tree also covers the goal of maintaining just 2 sub-trees and a
concurrent process of merging sub-trees. That sounds like it would
take a lot of additional time to get right and would need some
off-line process to perform the merge.

Please somebody advise patent status of Y-trees otherwise I wouldn't bother.

-- Simon Riggs                   http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Alvaro Herrera
Date:
Subject: Re: appendStringInfo vs appendStringInfoString
Next
From: Andres Freund
Date:
Subject: Re: appendStringInfo vs appendStringInfoString