Re: [HACKERS] [POC] A better way to expand hash indexes. - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Mithun Cy
Subject Re: [HACKERS] [POC] A better way to expand hash indexes.
Date
Msg-id CAD__OuiWzFB7vdasUhBJwLGxG_aSrsjxb3UfV8x7qOOWCGJ-0g@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: [HACKERS] [POC] A better way to expand hash indexes.  (David Steele <david@pgmasters.net>)
Responses Re: [HACKERS] [POC] A better way to expand hash indexes.  (Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
On Thu, Mar 16, 2017 at 10:55 PM, David Steele <david@pgmasters.net> wrote:
> It does apply with fuzz on 2b32ac2, so it looks like c11453c and
> subsequent commits are the cause.  They represent a fairly substantial
> change to hash indexes by introducing WAL logging so I think you should
> reevaluate your patches to be sure they still function as expected.

Thanks, David here is the new improved patch I have also corrected the
pageinspect's test output. Also, added notes in README regarding the
new way of adding bucket pages efficiently in hash index. I also did
some more tests pgbench read only and read write;
There is no performance impact due to the patch. The growth of index
size has become much efficient as the numbers posted in the initial
proposal mail.

-- 
Thanks and Regards
Mithun C Y
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com

-- 
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers

Attachment

pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Rushabh Lathia
Date:
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] wait events for disk I/O
Next
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] New CORRESPONDING clause design