Re: [HACKERS] Review: GIN non-intrusive vacuum of posting tree - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Jeff Davis
Subject Re: [HACKERS] Review: GIN non-intrusive vacuum of posting tree
Date
Msg-id CAMp0ubfHk1PUxJWG64NqArii3jyB9cs9NC-m2nxJaFP05-w3Ew@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: [HACKERS] Review: GIN non-intrusive vacuum of posting tree  (Andrew Borodin <borodin@octonica.com>)
Responses Re: [HACKERS] Review: GIN non-intrusive vacuum of posting tree  (Andrew Borodin <borodin@octonica.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
On Tue, Jan 24, 2017 at 3:18 AM, Andrew Borodin <borodin@octonica.com> wrote:
> Technically, approach of locking a subtree is not novel. Lehman and
> Yao focused on "that any process for manipulating the tree uses only a
> small (constant) number of locks at any time." We are locking unknown
> and possibly large amount of pages.

By the way, can you show me where the Lehman and Yao paper addresses
page recycling?

It says that one approach is to allow fewer than K entries on a leaf
node; presumably as few as zero. But it doesn't seem to show how to
remove all references to the page and recycle it in a new place in the
tree.

Regards,    Jeff Davis



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Performance improvement for joins where outer side is unique
Next
From: Tobias Oberstein
Date:
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] lseek/read/write overhead becomes visible at scale ..