From: Anastasia Lubennikova <a.lubennikova@postgrespro.ru>
To: David Steele <david@pgmasters.net>
To: pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: [WIP] Effective storage of duplicates in B-tree index.
Date: Tue, 15 Mar 2016 20:36:52 +0300
Message-ID: <56E84834.2070003@postgrespro.ru> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <56E6B64E.6000101@pgmasters.net>
References: <55E4051B.7020209@postgrespro.ru>
<56AA2081.1080001@postgrespro.ru>
<CAA-aLv68Ptrnk2HpHSg9wYR0c+D2AyTB+XrS671brxqQz3dH3w@mail.gmail.com>
<56AA3E06.8040006@postgrespro.ru>
<CAA-aLv5aQezrfh2iJD97R1sQ6nqMsR2QZ_YAzNfAOkkMgO8CFQ@mail.gmail.com>
<56AB6D30.2040900@postgrespro.ru>
<20160129184733.2ca9026a@fujitsu>
<CAA-aLv7pmO41G78jfLsftsCvkXZw6dL8HZoCX9ute6nQxJv2tw@mail.gmail.com>
<56AB9866.6050207@postgrespro.ru>
<CAM3SWZQ3_PLQCH4w7uQ8q_f2t4HEseKTr2n0rQ5pxA18OeRTJw@mail.gmail.com>
<56C5FCE1.1090509@postgrespro.ru>
<56C5FF80.5050905@postgrespro.ru>
<56E6B64E.6000101@pgmasters.net>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:majordomo@postgresql.org?body=unsub%20pgsql-hackers>
14.03.2016 16:02, David Steele:
> Hi Anastasia,
>
> On 2/18/16 12:29 PM, Anastasia Lubennikova wrote:
>> 18.02.2016 20:18, Anastasia Lubennikova:
>>> 04.02.2016 20:16, Peter Geoghegan:
>>>> On Fri, Jan 29, 2016 at 8:50 AM, Anastasia Lubennikova
>>>> <a.lubennikova@postgrespro.ru> wrote:
>>>>> I fixed it in the new version (attached).
>>>
>>> Thank you for the review.
>>> At last, there is a new patch version 3.0. After some refactoring it
>>> looks much better.
>>> I described all details of the compression in this document
>>> https://goo.gl/50O8Q0 (the same text without pictures is attached in
>>> btc_readme_1.0.txt).
>>> Consider it as a rough copy of readme. It contains some notes about
>>> tricky moments of implementation and questions about future work.
>>> Please don't hesitate to comment it.
>>>
>> Sorry, previous patch was dirty. Hotfix is attached.
>
> This looks like an extremely valuable optimization for btree indexes
> but unfortunately it is not getting a lot of attention. It still
> applies cleanly for anyone interested in reviewing.
>
Thank you for attention.
I would be indebted to all reviewers, who can just try this patch on
real data and workload (except WAL for now).
B-tree needs very much testing.
> It's not clear to me that you answered all of Peter's questions in
> [1]. I understand that you've provided a README but it may not be
> clear if the answers are in there (and where).
I described in README all the points Peter asked.
But I see that it'd be better to answer directly.
Thanks for reminding, I'll do it tomorrow.
> Also, at the end of the README it says:
>
> 13. Xlog. TODO.
>
> Does that mean the patch is not yet complete?
Yes, you're right.
Frankly speaking, I supposed that someone will help me with that stuff,
but now I almost completed it. I'll send updated patch in the next letter.
I'm still doubtful about some patch details. I mentioned them in readme
(bold type).
But they are mostly about future improvements.
--
Anastasia Lubennikova
Postgres Professional: http://www.postgrespro.com
The Russian Postgres Company
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
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: a.lubennikova@postgrespro.ru, david@pgmasters.net
Subject: Re: [WIP] Effective storage of duplicates in B-tree index.
In-Reply-To: <56E84834.2070003@postgrespro.ru>
* 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