Re: [HACKERS] Small improvement to compactify_tuples

2017-11-08 20:02 GMT+03:00 Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>:
>
> Claudio Freire <klaussfreire@gmail.com> writes:
> > What's perhaps not clear is whether there are better ideas. Like
> > rebuilding the page as Tom proposes, which doesn't seem like a bad
> > idea. Bucket sort already is O(bytes), just as memcopy, only it has a
> > lower constant factor (it's bytes/256 in the original patch), which
> > might make copying the whole page an extra time lose against bucket
> > sort in a few cases.
>
> > Deciding that last point does need more benchmarking. That doesn't
> > mean the other improvements can't be pursued in the meanwhile, right?
>
> Well, I doubt we're going to end up committing more than one of these
> ideas.  The question is which way is best.  If people are willing to
> put in the work to test all of them, let's do it.
>
> BTW, it strikes me that in considering the rebuild-the-page approach,
> we should not have blinders on and just measure the speed of
> PageRepairFragmentation.  Rather, we should take a look at what happens
> subsequently given a physically-ordered set of tuples.  I can recall
> Andres or someone moaning awhile ago about lack of locality of access in
> index page searches --- maybe applying that approach while vacuuming
> indexes will help?
>
>                         regards, tom lane