On Wed, 21 Feb 2024 at 00:33, Michail Nikolaev
<michail.nikolaev@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Hello!
> > I think the best way for this to work would be an index method that
> > exclusively stores TIDs, and of which we can quickly determine new
> > tuples, too. I was thinking about something like GIN's format, but
> > using (generation number, tid) instead of ([colno, colvalue], tid) as
> > key data for the internal trees, and would be unlogged (because the
> > data wouldn't have to survive a crash)
>
> Yeah, this seems to be a reasonable approach, but there are some
> doubts related to it - it needs new index type as well as unlogged
> indexes to be introduced - this may make the patch too invasive to be
> merged.
I suppose so, though persistence is usually just to keep things
correct in case of crashes, and this "index" is only there to support
processes that don't expect to survive crashes.
> Also, some way to remove the index from the catalog in case of
> a crash may be required.
That's less of an issue though, we already accept that a crash during
CIC/RIC leaves unusable indexes around, so "needs more cleanup" is not
exactly a blocker.
> A few more thoughts:
> * it is possible to go without generation number - we may provide a
> way to do some kind of fast index lookup (by TID) directly during the
> second table scan phase.
While possible, I don't think this would be more performant than the
combination approach, at the cost of potentially much more random IO
when the table is aggressively being updated.
> * one more option is to maintain a Tuplesorts (instead of an index)
> with TIDs as changelog and merge with index snapshot after taking a
> new visibility snapshot. But it is not clear how to share the same
> Tuplesort with multiple inserting backends.
Tuplesort requires the leader process to wait for concurrent backends
to finish their sort before it can start consuming their runs. This
would make it a very bad alternative to the "changelog index" as the
CIC process would require on-demand actions from concurrent backends
(flush of sort state). I'm not convinced that's somehow easier.
> * crazy idea - what is about to do the scan in the index we are
> building? We have tuple, so, we have all the data indexed in the
> index. We may try to do an index scan using that data to get all
> tuples and find the one with our TID :)
We can't rely on that, because we have no guarantee we can find the
tuple quickly enough. Equality-based indexing is very much optional,
and so are TID-based checks (outside the current vacuum-related APIs),
so finding one TID can (and probably will) take O(indexsize) when the
tuple is not in the index, which is one reason for ambulkdelete() to
exist.
Kind regards,
Matthias van de Meent
