Re: WIP: Fast GiST index build
От | Alexander Korotkov |
---|---|
Тема | Re: WIP: Fast GiST index build |
Дата | |
Msg-id | CAPpHfdu9euc5=9D3kC+cuOa4N0=4nQKY1hu=oSvHbrSnApa4gg@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: WIP: Fast GiST index build (Heikki Linnakangas <heikki.linnakangas@enterprisedb.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: WIP: Fast GiST index build
Hot standby and GiST page splits (was Re: WIP: Fast GiST index build) |
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, Jul 27, 2011 at 6:05 PM, Heikki Linnakangas <heikki.linnakangas@enterprisedb.com> wrote:
------
With best regards,
Alexander Korotkov.
Dunno, both approaches seem reasonable to me. There's no rule against changing WAL record structure across major releases, if that's what you were worried about.
OK, thanks. I also found behaviour of GiST(without patch) with streaming replication that seems strange for me. On master there are only few rightlinks are InvalidBlockNumber while on slave there are a lot of them. I hack gevel for getting index structure on slave (accessing tree without AccessExclusiveLock).
On master:
# create table test as (select point(random(),random()) from generate_series(1,100000));
# create index test_idx on test using gist(point);
# \copy (select gist_tree('test_idx')) to 'tree1r.txt';
On slave:
# \copy (select gist_tree('test_idx')) to 'tree2r.txt';
In bash:
# cat tree1r.txt | sed 's/\\n/\n/g' > tree1.txt
# cat tree2r.txt | sed 's/\\n/\n/g' > tree2.txt
# diff tree1.txt tree2.txt
2,89c2,89
< 1(l:1) blk: 324 numTuple: 129 free: 2472b(69.71%) rightlink:637 (OK)
< 1(l:2) blk: 242 numTuple: 164 free: 932b(88.58%) rightlink:319 (OK)
< 2(l:2) blk: 525 numTuple: 121 free: 2824b(65.39%) rightlink:153 (OK)
< 3(l:2) blk: 70 numTuple: 104 free: 3572b(56.23%) rightlink:551 (OK)
< 4(l:2) blk: 384 numTuple: 106 free: 3484b(57.30%) rightlink:555 (OK)
< 5(l:2) blk: 555 numTuple: 121 free: 2824b(65.39%) rightlink:74 (OK)
< 6(l:2) blk: 564 numTuple: 109 free: 3352b(58.92%) rightlink:294 (OK)
< 7(l:2) blk: 165 numTuple: 108 free: 3396b(58.38%) rightlink:567 (OK)
.....
---
> 1(l:1) blk: 324 numTuple: 129 free: 2472b(69.71%) rightlink:4294967295 (InvalidBlockNumber)
> 1(l:2) blk: 242 numTuple: 164 free: 932b(88.58%) rightlink:4294967295 (InvalidBlockNumber)
> 2(l:2) blk: 525 numTuple: 121 free: 2824b(65.39%) rightlink:4294967295 (InvalidBlockNumber)
> 3(l:2) blk: 70 numTuple: 104 free: 3572b(56.23%) rightlink:4294967295 (InvalidBlockNumber)
> 4(l:2) blk: 384 numTuple: 106 free: 3484b(57.30%) rightlink:4294967295 (InvalidBlockNumber)
> 5(l:2) blk: 555 numTuple: 121 free: 2824b(65.39%) rightlink:4294967295 (InvalidBlockNumber)
> 6(l:2) blk: 564 numTuple: 109 free: 3352b(58.92%) rightlink:4294967295 (InvalidBlockNumber)
> 7(l:2) blk: 165 numTuple: 108 free: 3396b(58.38%) rightlink:4294967295 (InvalidBlockNumber)
.....
Isn't it a bug?
With best regards,
Alexander Korotkov.
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: