Re: GIN improvements part 1: additional information - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Alexander Korotkov
Subject Re: GIN improvements part 1: additional information
Date
Msg-id CAPpHfdtgqY8AXnCQ7E2v6Y7FLtUTK1YE9wPNSvTCNOyQ8j0eAg@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: GIN improvements part 1: additional information  (Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnakangas@vmware.com>)
Responses Re: GIN improvements part 1: additional information
List pgsql-hackers
On Wed, Jan 22, 2014 at 9:28 PM, Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnakangas@vmware.com> wrote:
On 01/22/2014 02:17 PM, Alexander Korotkov wrote:
We already spent a lot of time with compression. Now we need to figure out
the result we want see. I spent quite long time debugging varbyte encoding
without segments. Finally, it passed very many tests without any problems.
Now, it is just piece of junk. I'm afraid that we will have to reimplement
everything from scratch another two or three times because code doesn't
look perfect. For sure, it's incompatible with getting something into 9.4.

That's a bit harsh :-). But yes, I understand what you're saying. It's quite common for large patches like this to be rewritten several times before being committed; you just don't know what works best until you've tried many designs.


Remember we have also subsequent fast-scan which is very needed for hstore
and other application.
I propose to do final decisions now and concentrate forces on making
committable patch with these decisions. And don't change these decisions
even if somebody have idea how to improve code readability in 100 times and
potential extendability in 1000 times.
I propose following decisions:
1) Leave uncompressed area, allow duplicates in it
2) Don't introduce Items on page.

Well, I got the insertions to work now without the uncompressed area, so in the spirit of Just Getting This Damn Patch Committed, I'm going to go ahead with that. We can add the uncompressed area later if performance testing shows it to be necessary. And I agree about the Items on page idea - we can come back to that too still in 9.4 timeframe if necessary, but probably not.

So, committed. It's the same design as in the most recent patch I posted, but with a bunch of bugs fixed, and cleaned up all over. I'm going to move to the fast scan patch now, but please do test and review the committed version to see if I missed something.

Great! Thanks a lot!
Assertion in dataPlaceToPageLeafRecompress is too strong. Page can contain GinDataLeafMaxContentSize bytes. Patch is attached.
My test-suite don't run correctly. I'm debugging now.

------
With best regards,
Alexander Korotkov.  
Attachment

pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: [bug fix] pg_ctl always uses the same event source
Next
From: KaiGai Kohei
Date:
Subject: Re: WIP patch (v2) for updatable security barrier views