Re: Bloom index
От | Teodor Sigaev |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Bloom index |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 4B54586B.9000904@sigaev.ru обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Bloom index (Greg Stark <gsstark@mit.edu>) |
Ответы |
Re: Bloom index
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
> So for example if your bloom filter is 4 bits per column your error > rate for a single column where clause will be 1/2^(4/1.44) or a little > worse than returning 1 record in 7. If you test two or three columns > then it'll be about 1 in 49 or 1 in 343. Hmm, I don't understand your calculations. In your example (4 bits per column, index has only one column) each row is hashed by 4 bits in 80-bit vector (signature), so, probability of collision is (1/80)^4 > > Also, as it stands now it's an unordered list. I assume you have no > plans to implement vacuum for this? Perhaps it would be better to > store a btree of signatures ordered by htid. That would let you easily > vacuum dead entries. Though it would necessitate random seeks to do > the full scan of the index unless you can solve the full index scan > concurrent with page splits problem. Vacuum is already implemented by producing a full scan of index like all other indexes. -- Teodor Sigaev E-mail: teodor@sigaev.ru WWW: http://www.sigaev.ru/
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: