Thanks, Amit On Mon, Feb 20, 2017 at 9:51 PM, Amit Kapila <amit.kapil...@gmail.com> wrote: > How will high and lowmask calculations work in this new strategy? > Till now they always work on doubling strategy and I don't see you > have changed anything related to that code. Check below places.
It is important that the mask has to be (2^x) -1, if we have to retain the same hash map function. So mask variables will take same values as before. Only place I think we need change is _hash_metapinit(); unfortunately, I did not test for the case where we build the hash index on already existing tuples. Now I have fixed in the latest patch. > Till now, we have worked hard for not changing the page format in a > backward incompatible way, so it will be better if we could find some > way of doing this without changing the meta page format in a backward > incompatible way. We are not adding any new variable/ deleting some, we increase the size of hashm_spares and hence mapping functions should be adjusted. The problem is the block allocation, and its management is based on the fact that all of the buckets(will be 2^x in number) belonging to a particular split-point is allocated at once and together. The hashm_spares is used to record those allocations and that will be used further by map functions to reach a particular block in the file. If we want to change the way we allocate the buckets then hashm_spares will change and hence mapping function. So I do not think we can avoid incompatibility issue. One thing I can think of is if we can increase the hashm_version of hash index; then for old indexes, we can continue to use doubling method and its mapping. For new indexes, we can use new way as above. Have you considered to store some information in > shared memory based on which we can decide how much percentage of > buckets are allocated in current table half? I think we might be able > to construct this information after crash recovery as well. I think all of above data has to be persistent. I am not able to understand what should be/can be stored in shared buffers. Can you please correct me if I am wrong? -- Thanks and Regards Mithun C Y EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
expand_hashbucket_efficiently_02
Description: Binary data
-- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
