On 10.10.2013 13:57, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> On 09.10.2013 02:04, Tomas Vondra wrote:
>> On 8.10.2013 21:59, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
>>> On 08.10.2013 17:47, Alexander Korotkov wrote:
>>>> Hi, Tomas!
>>>> On Sun, Oct 6, 2013 at 3:58 AM, Tomas Vondra<t...@fuzzy.cz>   wrote:
>>>>> I've attempted to rerun the benchmarks tests I did a few weeks ago,
>>>>> but
>>>>>    I got repeated crashes when loading the data (into a table with
>>>>> tsvector+gin index).
>>>>> Right before a crash, theres this message in the log:
>>>>>      PANIC:  not enough space in leaf page!
>>>> Thanks for testing. Heikki's version of patch don't works for me too on
>>>> even much more simplier examples. I can try to get it working if he
>>>> answer
>>>> my question about GinDataLeafPageGetPostingList* macros.
>>> The new macros in that patch version were quite botched. Here's a new
>>> attempt.
>> Nope, still the same errors :-(
>> PANIC:  not enough space in leaf page!
>> LOG:  server process (PID 29722) was terminated by signal 6: Aborted
>> DETAIL:  Failed process was running: autovacuum: ANALYZE public.messages
> I've continued hacking away at the patch, here's yet another version.
> I've done a lot of cleanup and refactoring to make the code more
> readable (I hope). I'm not sure what caused the panic you saw, but it's
> probably fixed now.  Let me know if not.

Yup, this version fixed the issues. I haven't been able to do any
benchmarks yet, all I have is some basic stats

               |   HEAD   |  patched
load duration  |  1084 s  |   1086 s
subject index  |   96 MB  |     96 MB
body index     | 2349 MB  |   2051 MB

So there's virtually no difference in speed (which is expected, AFAIK)
and the large index on full message bodies is significantly smaller.


Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:

Reply via email to