Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] Microvacuum for gist.

But I don't understand this comment: + /* +* While we delete only one tuple at once we could mix calls +* PageIndexTupleDelete() here and PageIndexMultiDelete() in +* gistRedoPageUpdateRecord() +*/ Does this mean:

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] Microvacuum for gist.

On Wed, Sep 16, 2015 at 8:36 AM, Teodor Sigaev wrote: > But It seems to me that it would be better to rewrite all mentions of >> TupleDelete to MultiDelete in gist code. >> > > Sure. Patch is attached, and it changes WAL format, so be carefull with > testing. > Please, have a

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] Microvacuum for gist.

16.09.2015 07:30, Jeff Janes: The commit of this patch seems to have created a bug in which updated tuples can disappear from the index, while remaining in the table. It looks like the bug depends on going through a crash-recovery cycle, but I am not sure of that yet. I've looked

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] Microvacuum for gist.

But It seems to me that it would be better to rewrite all mentions of TupleDelete to MultiDelete in gist code. Sure. Patch is attached, and it changes WAL format, so be carefull with testing. Please, have a look. Also in attach scripts reproduce bug from Jeff's report: g.pl - creates and fills

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] Microvacuum for gist.

On Tue, Sep 8, 2015 at 2:35 PM, Anastasia Lubennikova < a.lubennik...@postgrespro.ru> wrote: > > Fixed patch is attached. > > The commit of this patch seems to have created a bug in which updated tuples can disappear from the index, while remaining in the table. It looks like the bug depends on

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] Microvacuum for gist.

Something goes wrong... gist.c:1465:5: warning: unused variable 'minoff' [-Wunused-variable] minoff, gistget.c:37:1: warning: unused function 'gistkillitems' [-Wunused-function] gistkillitems(IndexScanDesc scan) Without microvacuum. All 'select' queries are

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] Microvacuum for gist.

BTW, I slightly modify your test to provide more stable results. -- Teodor Sigaev E-mail: teo...@sigaev.ru WWW: http://www.sigaev.ru/ drop table test; CREATE TABLE test (box box); alter table test set

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] Microvacuum for gist.

Fixed patch is attached. 08.09.2015 13:47, Teodor Sigaev: BTW, I slightly modify your test to provide more stable results. Thank you, I tried it, Results are nearly the same. Without microvacuum Time: 312,955 ms Time: 264,597 ms Time: 243,286 ms Time: 243,679 ms With microvacuum: Time:

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] Microvacuum for gist.

On 8 September 2015 at 22:35, Anastasia Lubennikova < a.lubennik...@postgrespro.ru> wrote: > > Fixed patch is attached. > > 08.09.2015 13:47, Teodor Sigaev: > >> BTW, I slightly modify your test to provide more stable results. >> > > Thank you, I tried it, Results are nearly the same. > > Without

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] Microvacuum for gist.

04.09.2015 15:11, Teodor Sigaev: Some notices 1 gistvacuumpage(): OffsetNumber deletable[MaxOffsetNumber]; Seems, MaxOffsetNumber is too much, MaxIndexTuplesPerPage is enough Fixed. 2 Loop in gistkillitems() for searching heap pointer. It seems to me that it could be a performance

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] Microvacuum for gist.

Some notices 1 gistvacuumpage(): OffsetNumber deletable[MaxOffsetNumber]; Seems, MaxOffsetNumber is too much, MaxIndexTuplesPerPage is enough 2 Loop in gistkillitems() for searching heap pointer. It seems to me that it could be a performance problem. To fix it, it's needed to remember

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] Microvacuum for gist.

Hi, I don't know too much about gist, but did a quick read through. Mostly spotting some stylistic issues. Please fix those making it easier for the next reviewer. Thank you for review! All mentioned issues are fixed. -- Anastasia Lubennikova Postgres Professional:http://www.postgrespro.com

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] Microvacuum for gist.

Hi, I don't know too much about gist, but did a quick read through. Mostly spotting some stylistic issues. Please fix those making it easier for the next reviewer. > *** a/src/backend/access/gist/gist.c > --- b/src/backend/access/gist/gist.c > *** > *** 36,42 static bool

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] Microvacuum for gist.

On Mon, Aug 3, 2015 at 12:27 PM, Anastasia Lubennikova a.lubennik...@postgrespro.ru mailto:a.lubennik...@postgrespro.ru wrote: 1) Test and results are in attachments. Everything seems to work as expected. 2) I dropped these notices. It was done only for debug purposes.

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] Microvacuum for gist.

On Mon, Aug 3, 2015 at 12:27 PM, Anastasia Lubennikova a.lubennik...@postgrespro.ru wrote: 1) Test and results are in attachments. Everything seems to work as expected. 2) I dropped these notices. It was done only for debug purposes. Updated patch is attached. 3) fixed Good! Another

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] Microvacuum for gist.

30.07.2015 16:33, Alexander Korotkov пишет: Hi! On Thu, Jul 30, 2015 at 2:51 PM, Anastasia Lubennikova lubennikov...@gmail.com mailto:lubennikov...@gmail.com wrote: I have written microvacuum support for gist access method. Briefly microvacuum includes two steps: 1. When search

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] Microvacuum for gist.

Hi! On Thu, Jul 30, 2015 at 2:51 PM, Anastasia Lubennikova lubennikov...@gmail.com wrote: I have written microvacuum support for gist access method. Briefly microvacuum includes two steps: 1. When search tells us that the tuple is invisible to all transactions it is marked LP_DEAD and page

[HACKERS] [PATCH] Microvacuum for gist.

Hi, I have written microvacuum support for gist access method. Briefly microvacuum includes two steps: 1. When search tells us that the tuple is invisible to all transactions it is marked LP_DEAD and page is marked as has dead tuples, 2. Then, when insert touches full page which has dead tuples

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] Microvacuum for gist.

On 7/30/15 7:33 AM, Alexander Korotkov wrote: 2) Generating notices for every dead tuple would be too noisy. I suggest to replace notice with one of debug levels. + elog(NOTICE, gistkillitems. Mark Item Dead offnum %hd, blkno %d, offnum, BufferGetBlockNumber(buffer)); Even that seems like