On Wed, Jul 5, 2023 at 8:21 PM John Naylor <john.nay...@enterprisedb.com> wrote: > > On Tue, Jul 4, 2023 at 12:49 PM Masahiko Sawada <sawada.m...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > As you mentioned, the 1-byte value is embedded into 8 byte so 7 bytes > > are unused, but we use less memory since we use less slab contexts and > > save fragmentations. > > Thanks for testing. This tree is sparse enough that most of the space is > taken up by small inner nodes, and not by leaves. So, it's encouraging to see > a small space savings even here. > > > I've also tested some large value cases (e.g. the value is 80-bytes) > > and got a similar result. > > Interesting. With a separate allocation per value the overhead would be 8 > bytes, or 10% here. It's plausible that savings elsewhere can hide that, > globally. > > > Regarding the codes, there are many todo and fixme comments so it > > seems to me that your recent work is still in-progress. What is the > > current status? Can I start reviewing the code or should I wait for a > > while until your recent work completes? > > Well, it's going to be a bit of a mess until I can demonstrate it working > (and working well) with bitmap heap scan. Fixing that now is just going to > create conflicts. I do have a couple small older patches laying around that > were quick experiments -- I think at least some of them should give a > performance boost in loading speed, but haven't had time to test. Would you > like to take a look?
Yes, I can experiment with these patches in the meantime. Regards, -- Masahiko Sawada Amazon Web Services: https://aws.amazon.com
