Re: Patch: Write Amplification Reduction Method (WARM)
От | Amit Kapila |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Patch: Write Amplification Reduction Method (WARM) |
Дата | |
Msg-id | CAA4eK1J7ThxvVc0DN9KgX04scFjzHoZSNhD4PSwmF7bfTzfQsA@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: [HACKERS] Patch: Write Amplification Reduction Method (WARM) (Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: Patch: Write Amplification Reduction Method (WARM)
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Sat, Mar 25, 2017 at 1:24 PM, Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com> wrote: > On Fri, Mar 24, 2017 at 11:49 PM, Pavan Deolasee > <pavan.deolasee@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> On Fri, Mar 24, 2017 at 6:46 PM, Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com> >> wrote: >>> > >> While looking at this problem, it occurred to me that the assumptions made >> for hash indexes are also wrong :-( Hash index has the same problem as >> expression indexes have. A change in heap value may not necessarily cause a >> change in the hash key. If we don't detect that, we will end up having two >> hash identical hash keys with the same TID pointer. This will cause the >> duplicate key scans problem since hashrecheck will return true for both the >> hash entries. Isn't it possible to detect duplicate keys in hashrecheck if we compare both hashkey and tid stored in index tuple with the corresponding values from heap tuple? -- With Regards, Amit Kapila. EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: