Re: Returning nbtree posting list TIDs in DESC order during backwards scans

Hi,

On 03/12/2025 03:08, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
> Coming back to this patch now, after several months of work on index
> prefetching.

Nice, welcome back! It would be great to wrap this up.

> Tomas Vondra suggested that I keep killedItems as a separate
> allocation (as it is on master), while using a Bitmapset to represent
> killedItems (unlike on master, where it is represented using a simple
> array). This has all of the same advantages as my previous approach,
> but doesn't have the aforementioned disadvantages within _bt_killitems
> (plus we no longer need to change BTScanPosItem in any way).
Good one!


> -	* Don't bother advancing the outermost loop's int iterator to
> -	* avoid processing killed items that relate to the same
> -       * offnum/posting list tuple.  This micro-optimization hardly
> -       * seems worth it.  (Further iterations of the outermost loop
> -	* will fail to match on this same posting list's first heap
> -       * TID instead, so we'll advance to the next offnum/index
> -       * tuple pretty quickly.)
> +       * Don't advance itemIndex for outermost loop, no matter how
> +       * nextIndex was advanced.  It's possible that items whose
> +       * TIDs weren't matched in posting list can still be killed
> +       * (there might be a later tuple whose TID is a match).
Hmm, as far as I can tell, the old version of the comment seems more 
accurate. If I understand correctly, it's still safe to do the 
micro-optimization, but we choose to not do it because we expect the 
speedup will not be worth the increased complexity / risk of introducing 
bugs.

-- 
Thanks,
Mircea Cadariu