Re: [HACKERS] Hash Indexes

On Mon, Sep 19, 2016 at 05:50:13PM +1200, Mark Kirkwood wrote: > >I'm rather unenthused about having a hash index implementation that's > >mildly better in some corner cases, but otherwise doesn't have much > >benefit. That'll mean we'll have to step up our user education a lot, > >and we'll have

Re: [HACKERS] Hash Indexes

On Wed, Sep 21, 2016 at 08:44:15PM +0100, Geoff Winkless wrote: > On 21 September 2016 at 13:29, Robert Haas wrote: > > I'd be curious what benefits people expect to get. > > An edge case I came across the other day was a unique index on a large > string: postgresql popped

Re: [HACKERS] pgsql 10: hash indexes testing

On Fri, Aug 04, 2017 at 08:21:01AM +0530, Amit Kapila wrote: > Note - AP has off list shared the data dump and we (Ashutosh Sharma > and me) are able to reproduce the problem and we could see that if we > force vacuum via the debugger, then it is able to free overflow pages. > The e

Re: [HACKERS] pgsql 10: hash indexes testing

ATM I'm not getting anywhere near that and am tempted to chuck it all in, eat the 3-4x disk space cost and go back to btree which'd cost me terrabytes. AP -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers

Re: [HACKERS] pgsql 10: hash indexes testing

On Fri, Aug 11, 2017 at 07:33:51AM +0530, Amit Kapila wrote: > On Thu, Aug 10, 2017 at 4:11 PM, AP <a...@zip.com.au> wrote: > > mdstash=# select * from pgstathashindex('link_datum_id_idx'); > > version | bucket_pages | overflow_pages | bitmap_pages | unused_pages | > &

Re: [HACKERS] pgsql 10: hash indexes testing

On Thu, Aug 10, 2017 at 01:12:25PM -0400, Robert Haas wrote: > On Thu, Aug 10, 2017 at 6:41 AM, AP <a...@zip.com.au> wrote: > > The index is 135GB rather than 900GB (from memory/give or take). > > Whoa. Big improvement. Not a good direct comparison in general but it fits my

Re: [HACKERS] pgsql 10: hash indexes testing

On Sun, Aug 06, 2017 at 04:32:29PM +1000, AP wrote: > On Sat, Aug 05, 2017 at 04:41:24PM +0530, Amit Kapila wrote: > > > (On another note, I committed these patches.) > > > > Thanks. > > Seconded. :) > > Now uploading data with fillfactor of 90. I'll k

Re: [HACKERS] pgsql 10: hash indexes testing

On Fri, Jul 07, 2017 at 05:58:25PM +0530, Amit Kapila wrote: > On Fri, Jul 7, 2017 at 8:22 AM, AP <a...@zip.com.au> wrote: > > On Thu, Jul 06, 2017 at 05:19:59PM +0530, Amit Kapila wrote: > >> I think if you are under development, it is always advisable to create > &g

[HACKERS] pgsql 10: hash indexes testing

transaction per connection. The whole process can take 12-15 hours and involves 1000 transactions. Hopefully it's not a specific set of random values that generates the error cos duplicating THAT will be outpaced by the death of the universe. :) AP -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers

Re: [HACKERS] pgsql 10: hash indexes testing

On Wed, Jul 05, 2017 at 08:10:10AM +0530, Amit Kapila wrote: > On Tue, Jul 4, 2017 at 4:27 PM, AP <a...@zip.com.au> wrote: > > There is one index that caused an issue. Towards the end of an import > > I got the following error: > > > > out of overflow pages in

Re: [HACKERS] pgsql 10: hash indexes testing

On Thu, Jul 06, 2017 at 08:52:03AM +0530, Amit Kapila wrote: > On Thu, Jul 6, 2017 at 2:40 AM, AP <a...@zip.com.au> wrote: > > On Wed, Jul 05, 2017 at 05:52:32PM +0530, Amit Kapila wrote: > >> >> > version | bucket_pages | overflow_pages | bitmap_pages | &g

Re: [HACKERS] pgsql 10: hash indexes testing

On Wed, Jul 05, 2017 at 07:31:39PM +1000, AP wrote: > On Tue, Jul 04, 2017 at 08:23:20PM -0700, Jeff Janes wrote: > > On Tue, Jul 4, 2017 at 3:57 AM, AP <a...@zip.com.au> wrote: > > > The data being indexed is BYTEA, (quasi)random and 64 bytes in size. > > > The

Re: [HACKERS] pgsql 10: hash indexes testing

On Thu, Jul 06, 2017 at 12:38:38PM +0530, Amit Kapila wrote: > On Thu, Jul 6, 2017 at 9:32 AM, AP <a...@zip.com.au> wrote: > > On Thu, Jul 06, 2017 at 08:52:03AM +0530, Amit Kapila wrote: > >> On Thu, Jul 6, 2017 at 2:40 AM, AP <a...@zip.com.au> wrote: > >&g

Re: [HACKERS] pgsql 10: hash indexes testing

0 | 0 | 2 So it appears not. # show autovacuum; autovacuum on (1 row) All autovacuum parameters are as per default. The autovacuum launcher process exists. :( AP -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers

Re: [HACKERS] pgsql 10: hash indexes testing

On Wed, Jul 05, 2017 at 03:33:45PM +1000, AP wrote: > > Do you have any deletes? How have you verified whether autovacuum has > > No DELETEs. Just the initial COPY, then SELECTs, then a DB rename to get it > out of the way of other testing, then the REINDEX. > > > been

Re: [HACKERS] pgsql 10: hash indexes testing

On Tue, Jul 04, 2017 at 08:23:20PM -0700, Jeff Janes wrote: > On Tue, Jul 4, 2017 at 3:57 AM, AP <a...@zip.com.au> wrote: > > The data being indexed is BYTEA, (quasi)random and 64 bytes in size. > > The table has over 2 billion entries. The data is not unique. There's

Re: [HACKERS] pgsql 10: hash indexes testing

am being /so/ unusual that it's not worth it. :) I'll reply to the rest in a separate stream as I'm still poking other work related things atm so can't do the debug testing as yet. AP -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers

Re: [HACKERS] pgsql 10: hash indexes testing

(1 row) If you need more info or whatnot, shout. I've a problematic index to play with now. > [1] - > https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/b970f20f-f096-2d3a-6c6d-ee887bd30cfb%402ndquadrant.fr AP -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers

Re: [HACKERS] pgsql 10: hash indexes testing

I compiled (as apt.postgresql.org does not provide the latest beta3 version for stretch; only sid which has a different perl version) 10~beta3~20170805.2225-1~593.git0d1f98b. AP -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.