Re: prefix btree implementation - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Qingqing Zhou
Subject Re: prefix btree implementation
Date
Msg-id Pine.LNX.4.58.0510062315350.26694@eon.cs
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: prefix btree implementation  ("Jim C. Nasby" <jnasby@pervasive.com>)
List pgsql-hackers

On Thu, 6 Oct 2005, Jim C. Nasby wrote:

> On Wed, Oct 05, 2005 at 03:40:43PM -0700, Qingqing Zhou wrote:
> > We do the prefix sharing when we build up index only, never on the fly.
>
> So are you saying that inserts of new data wouldn't make any use of
> this? ISTM that greatly reduces the usefulness, though I'm not objecting
> because compression during build is probably better than none at all. Is
> there a technical reason compression can't be used during normal
> operations?
>

Yes, there are. Think if we do it we when build up index, we can choose
the shared prefix optimally w.r.t. maximizing the number of index items on
the page. But on the fly, if we do so, I am afraid this will (1) kill the
performance; (2) introduce more complexities. I don't exclude the
possibility of doing prefix sharing on the fly, but for current stage, I
would like to first come up with a proof-of-concept patch not including
this part.

Regards,
Qingqing


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Bruce Momjian
Date:
Subject: Re: prefix btree implementation
Next
From: Bruce Momjian
Date:
Subject: Re: Announcing Veil