2014-03-06 18:17 GMT+09:00 Haribabu Kommi <kommi.haribabu@gmail.com>:
>
> On Tue, Mar 4, 2014 at 3:07 PM, Kouhei Kaigai <kaigai@ak.jp.nec.com> wrote:
>>
>> > > 4. + cchunk = ccache_vacuum_tuple(ccache, ccache->root_chunk, &ctid);
>> > > + if (pchunk != NULL && pchunk != cchunk)
>> > >
>> > > + ccache_merge_chunk(ccache, pchunk);
>> > >
>> > > + pchunk = cchunk;
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > The merge_chunk is called only when the heap tuples are spread
>> > > across two cache chunks. Actually one cache chunk can accommodate one
>> > > or more than heap pages. it needs some other way of handling.
>> > >
>> > I adjusted the logic to merge the chunks as follows:
>> >
>> > Once a tuple is vacuumed from a chunk, it also checks whether it can be
>> > merged with its child leafs. A chunk has up to two child leafs; left one
>> > has less ctid that the parent, and right one has greater ctid. It means
>> > a chunk without right child in the left sub-tree or a chunk without left
>> > child in the right sub-tree are neighbor of the chunk being vacuumed. In
>> > addition, if vacuumed chunk does not have either (or both) of children,
>> > it can be merged with parent node.
>> > I modified ccache_vacuum_tuple() to merge chunks during t-tree
>> > walk-down,
>> > if vacuumed chunk has enough free space.
>> >
>
>
> Patch looks good.
>
Thanks for your volunteering.
> Regarding merging of the nodes, instead of checking whether merge is
> possible or not for every tuple which is vacuumed,
> can we put some kind of threshold as whenever the node is 50% free then try
> to merge it from leaf nodes until 90% is full.
> The rest of the 10% will be left for the next inserts on the node. what do
> you say?
>
Hmm. Indeed, it makes sense. How about an idea that kicks chunk merging
if "expected" free space of merged chunk is less than 50%?
If threshold depends on the (expected) usage of merged chunk, it can avoid
over-merging.
> I will update you later regarding the performance test results.
>
Thhanks,
Also, I'll rebase the patch on top of the new custom-scan interfaces
according to Tom's suggestion, even though main logic of cache_scan
is not changed.
Best regards,
--
KaiGai Kohei <kaigai@kaigai.gr.jp>