Re: GiST VACUUM
От | Heikki Linnakangas |
---|---|
Тема | Re: GiST VACUUM |
Дата | |
Msg-id | ad2e8696-ba76-bf62-ebf7-bdef1dfeff6f@iki.fi обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: GiST VACUUM (Andrey Borodin <x4mmm@yandex-team.ru>) |
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On 04/01/2019 21:26, Andrey Borodin wrote: > 3 янв. 2019 г., в 23:47, Andrey Borodin <x4mmm@yandex-team.ru> > написал(а): >> >>> * Bitmapset stores 32 bit signed integers, but BlockNumber is >>> unsigned. So this will fail with an index larger than 2^31 >>> blocks. That's perhaps academical, I don't think anyone will try >>> to create a 16 TB GiST index any time soon. But it feels wrong to >>> introduce an arbitrary limitation like that. >> >> Looks like bitmapset is unsuitable for collecting block numbers due >> to the interface. Let's just create custom container for this? Or >> there is one other option: for each block number throw away sign >> bit and consider page potentially internal and potentially empty >> leaf if (blkno & 0x7FFFFFF) is in bitmapset. And then we will have >> to create at least one 17Tb GiST to check it actually works. > > Heikki, how do you think, is implementing our own radix tree for this > is viable solution? I've written working implementation with 4-level > statically typed tree. If we follow this route, probably, there must > be tests for this data structure. Yeah, seems reasonable. - Heikki
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: