On Thu, Sep 8, 2016 at 8:42 PM, Claudio Freire <klaussfre...@gmail.com>

> On Thu, Sep 8, 2016 at 11:54 AM, Pavan Deolasee
> <pavan.deola...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > For example, for a table with 60 bytes wide tuple (including 24 byte
> > header), each page can approximately have 8192/60 = 136 tuples. Say we
> > provision for 136*2 = 272 bits per page i.e. 34 bytes per page for the
> > bitmap. First 272 offsets in every page are represented in the bitmap and
> > anything greater than are in overflow region. On the other hand, the
> current
> > representation will need about 16 bytes per page assuming 2% dead
> tuples, 40
> > bytes per page assuming 5% dead tuples and 80 bytes assuming 10% dead
> > tuples. So bitmap will take more space for small tuples or when vacuum is
> > run very aggressively, both seems unlikely for very large tables. Of
> course
> > the calculation does not take into account the space needed by the
> overflow
> > area, but I expect that too be small.
> I thought about something like this, but it could be extremely
> inefficient for mostly frozen tables, since the bitmap cannot account
> for frozen pages without losing the O(1) lookup characteristic

Well, that's correct. But I thought the whole point is when there are large
number of dead tuples which requires large memory. If my math was correct
as explained above, then even at 5% dead tuples, bitmap representation will
consume approximate same memory but provide O(1) search time.


 Pavan Deolasee                   http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
 PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services

Reply via email to