Hi,
On 2021-07-27 13:06:56 +0900, Masahiko Sawada wrote:
> Apart from performance and memory usage points of view, we also need
> to consider the reusability of the code. When I started this thread, I
> thought the best data structure would be the one optimized for
> vacuum's dead tuple storage. However, if we can use a data structure
> that can also be used in general, we can use it also for other
> purposes. Moreover, if it's too optimized for the current TID system
> (32 bits block number, 16 bits offset number, maximum block/offset
> number, etc.) it may become a blocker for future changes.
Indeed.
> In that sense, radix tree also seems good since it can also be used in
> gist vacuum as a replacement for intset, or a replacement for hash
> table for shared buffer as discussed before. Are there any other use
> cases?
Yes, I think there are. Whenever there is some spatial locality it has a
decent chance of winning over a hash table, and it will most of the time
win over ordered datastructures like rbtrees (which perform very poorly
due to the number of branches and pointer dispatches). There's plenty
hashtables, e.g. for caches, locks, etc, in PG that have a medium-high
degree of locality, so I'd expect a few potential uses. When adding
"tree compression" (i.e. skip inner nodes that have a single incoming &
outgoing node) radix trees even can deal quite performantly with
variable width keys.
> On the other hand, I’m concerned that radix tree would be an
> over-engineering in terms of vacuum's dead tuples storage since the
> dead tuple storage is static data and requires only lookup operation,
> so if we want to use radix tree as dead tuple storage, I'd like to see
> further use cases.
I don't think we should rely on the read-only-ness. It seems pretty
clear that we'd want parallel dead-tuple scans at a point not too far
into the future?
Greetings,
Andres Freund