14.03.2016 16:02, David Steele:
On 2/18/16 12:29 PM, Anastasia Lubennikova wrote:
18.02.2016 20:18, Anastasia Lubennikova:
04.02.2016 20:16, Peter Geoghegan:
On Fri, Jan 29, 2016 at 8:50 AM, Anastasia Lubennikova
I fixed it in the new version (attached).
Thank you for the review.
At last, there is a new patch version 3.0. After some refactoring it
looks much better.
I described all details of the compression in this document
https://goo.gl/50O8Q0 (the same text without pictures is attached in
Consider it as a rough copy of readme. It contains some notes about
tricky moments of implementation and questions about future work.
Please don't hesitate to comment it.
Sorry, previous patch was dirty. Hotfix is attached.
This looks like an extremely valuable optimization for btree indexes
but unfortunately it is not getting a lot of attention. It still
applies cleanly for anyone interested in reviewing.
Thank you for attention.
I would be indebted to all reviewers, who can just try this patch on
real data and workload (except WAL for now).
B-tree needs very much testing.
It's not clear to me that you answered all of Peter's questions in
. I understand that you've provided a README but it may not be
clear if the answers are in there (and where).
I described in README all the points Peter asked.
But I see that it'd be better to answer directly.
Thanks for reminding, I'll do it tomorrow.
Also, at the end of the README it says:
13. Xlog. TODO.
Does that mean the patch is not yet complete?
Yes, you're right.
Frankly speaking, I supposed that someone will help me with that stuff,
but now I almost completed it. I'll send updated patch in the next letter.
I'm still doubtful about some patch details. I mentioned them in readme
But they are mostly about future improvements.
Postgres Professional: http://www.postgrespro.com
The Russian Postgres Company
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (email@example.com)
To make changes to your subscription: