Re: Minmax indexes
Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>
From: Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>
To: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com>
Cc: Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Date: 2014-06-17T14:26:11Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers
On Sat, Jun 14, 2014 at 10:34 PM, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: > Robert Haas wrote: >> On Wed, Sep 25, 2013 at 4:34 PM, Alvaro Herrera >> <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: >> > Here's an updated version of this patch, with fixes to all the bugs >> > reported so far. Thanks to Thom Brown, Jaime Casanova, Erik Rijkers and >> > Amit Kapila for the reports. >> >> I'm not very happy with the use of a separate relation fork for >> storing this data. > > Here's a new version of this patch. Now the revmap is not stored in a > separate fork, but together with all the regular data, as explained > elsewhere in the thread. Cool. Have you thought more about this comment from Heikki? http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/52495DD3.9010809@vmware.com I'm concerned that we could end up with one index type of this general nature for min/max type operations, and then another very similar index type for geometric operators or text-search operators or what have you. Considering the overhead in adding and maintaining an index AM, I think we should try to be sure that we've done a reasonably solid job making each one as general as we reasonably can. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
Commits
-
Refactor per-page logic common to all redo routines to a new function.
- f8f4227976a2 9.5.0 cited
-
Reduce use of heavyweight locking inside hash AM.
- 76837c1507cb 9.3.0 cited
-
Scan the buffer pool just once, not once per fork, during relation drop.
- ece01aae4792 9.2.0 cited
-
Major patch from Thomas Lockhart <Thomas.G.Lockhart@jpl.nasa.gov>
- 9e2a87b62db8 7.1.1 cited