From: Stephen Frost <sfrost@snowman.net>
To: Konstantin Knizhnik <k.knizhnik@postgrespro.ru>
Cc: Michael Paquier <michael.paquier@gmail.com>
Cc: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org>
Cc: Simon Riggs <simon@2ndquadrant.com>
Cc: Christoph Berg <myon@debian.org>
Cc: Thomas Munro <thomas.munro@enterprisedb.com>
Cc: Peter Eisentraut <peter.eisentraut@2ndquadrant.com>
Cc: PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Surjective functional indexes
Date: Sat, 6 Jan 2018 17:59:42 -0500
Message-ID: <20180106225942.GT2416@tamriel.snowman.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <623fdf0f-c3d1-7553-e784-f8d5a900239b@postgrespro.ru>
References: <aad81201-8788-a621-2001-537d843186fb@postgrespro.ru>
<20171214211553.ijxfd4p52nz7qg44@alvherre.pgsql>
<CAB7nPqR8GPni-Y_Tr1+6XFdYCuum8a5MuB9q2+hnVcA7BYrorw@mail.gmail.com>
<623fdf0f-c3d1-7553-e784-f8d5a900239b@postgrespro.ru>
Greetings,
* Konstantin Knizhnik (k.knizhnik@postgrespro.ru) wrote:
> On 15.12.2017 01:21, Michael Paquier wrote:
> >On Fri, Dec 15, 2017 at 6:15 AM, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org> wrote:
> >>Konstantin Knizhnik wrote:
> >>>If you still thing that additional 16 bytes per relation in statistic is too
> >>>high overhead, then I will also remove autotune.
> >>I think it's pretty clear that these additional bytes are excessive.
> >The bar to add new fields in PgStat_TableCounts in very high, and one
> >attempt to tackle its scaling problems with many relations is here by
> >Horiguchi-san:
> >https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/20171211.201523.24172046.horiguchi.kyotaro@lab.ntt.co.jp
> >His patch may be worth a look if you need more fields for your
> >feature. So it seems to me that the patch as currently presented has
> >close to zero chance to be committed as long as you keep your changes
> >to pgstat.c.
>
> Ok, looks like everybody think that autotune based on statistic is bad idea.
> Attached please find patch without autotune.
This patch appears to apply with a reasonable amount of fuzz, builds,
and passes 'make check', at least, therefore I'm going to mark it
'Needs Review'.
I will note that the documentation doesn't currently build due to this:
/home/sfrost/git/pg/dev/cleanup/doc/src/sgml/ref/create_index.sgml:302: parser error : Opening and ending tag mismatch: literal line 302 and unparseable
<term><literal>recheck_on_update</></term>
but I don't think it makes sense for that to stand in the way of someone
doing a review of the base patch. Still, please do fix the
documentation build when you get a chance.
Thanks!
Stephen
Attachments:
signature.asc (application/pgp-signature, 818B) download
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Reply to all the recipients using the --to and --cc options:
reply via email
To: pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
Cc: sfrost@snowman.net, k.knizhnik@postgrespro.ru, michael.paquier@gmail.com, alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org, simon@2ndquadrant.com, myon@debian.org, thomas.munro@enterprisedb.com, peter.eisentraut@2ndquadrant.com
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Surjective functional indexes
In-Reply-To: <20180106225942.GT2416@tamriel.snowman.net>
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
This inbox is served by DDX for PostgreSQL; see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox