Re: Patch: Write Amplification Reduction Method (WARM)
От | Amit Kapila |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Patch: Write Amplification Reduction Method (WARM) |
Дата | |
Msg-id | CAA4eK1LUqKpz-f7W+E3qpXU3MW9HNnOcvuK30Hx9K1v=5OPoGA@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: [HACKERS] Patch: Write Amplification Reduction Method (WARM) (Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com>) |
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Sat, Mar 25, 2017 at 11:24 PM, Pavan Deolasee <pavan.deolasee@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Sat, 25 Mar 2017 at 11:03 PM, Peter Geoghegan <pg@bowt.ie> wrote: >> >> On Sat, Mar 25, 2017 at 12:54 AM, Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com> >> wrote: >> > I am not sure how do you want to binary compare two datums, if you are >> > thinking datumIsEqual(), that won't work. I think you need to use >> > datatype specific compare function something like what we do in >> > _bt_compare(). >> >> How will that interact with types like numeric, that have display >> scale or similar? >> > I wonder why Amit thinks that datumIsEqual won't work once we convert the > heap values to index tuple and then fetch using index_get_attr. After all > that's how the current index tuple was constructed when it was inserted. I think for toasted values you need to detoast before comparison and it seems datamIsEqual won't do that job. Am I missing something which makes you think that datumIsEqual will work in this context. > In > fact, we must not rely on _bt_compare because that might return "false > positive" even for two different heap binary values (I think). I am not telling to rely on _bt_compare, what I was trying to hint at it was that I think we might need to use some column type specific information for comparison. I am not sure at this stage what is the best way to deal with this problem without incurring non trivial cost. -- With Regards, Amit Kapila. EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: