Re: GIN improvements part 1: additional information

On Fri, Nov 29, 2013 at 11:17 PM, Heikki Linnakangas <
hlinnakangas(at)vmware(dot)com> wrote:

> On 11/29/2013 11:41 AM, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
>
>> On 11/28/2013 09:19 AM, Alexander Korotkov wrote:
>>
>>> On Wed, Nov 27, 2013 at 1:14 AM, Heikki Linnakangas
>>> <hlinnakangas(at)vmware(dot)com
>>>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>
>>> On 11/26/13 15:34, Alexander Korotkov wrote:
>>>>
>>>> What's your plans about GIN now? I tried to rebase packed posting lists
>>>>> with head. But I found that you've changed interface of placeToPage
>>>>> function. That's conflicts with packed posting lists, because
>>>>> dataPlaceToPageLeaf needs not only offset number to describe place to
>>>>> insert item pointer. Do you like to commit rework of handling GIN
>>>>> incomplete splits before?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Yeah, I'm planning to get back to this patch after committing the
>>>> incomplete splits patch. I think the refactoring of the WAL-logging
>>>> that I
>>>> did in that patch will simplify this patch, too. I'll take a look at
>>>> Michael's latest comments on the incomplete splits patch tomorrow, so I
>>>> should get back to this on Thursday or Friday.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Should I try to rebase this patch now or you plan to do it yourself? Some
>>> changes like "void *insertdata" argument make me think you have some
>>> particular plan to rebase this patch, but I didn't get it exactly.
>>>
>>
>> Here's rebased version. I'll continue reviewing it now..
>>
>
> Another update. Fixes a bunch of bugs. Mostly introduced by me, but a
> couple were present in your v16:
>
> * When allocating the entry->list buffer in a scan, it must be large
> enough for the max number of items that can fit on a compressed page,
> whether the current page is compressed or not. That's because the same
> buffer is reused on subsequent pages, which might be compressed.
>
> * When splitting a leaf page during index creation, missed the trick
> that's present in current master, to choose the split point so that left
> page is packed as full as possible. I put that back, it makes newly-built
> indexes somewhat smaller. (I wonder if we should leave some free space for
> future updates. But that's a separate patch, let's keep the current
> behavior in this patch)
>
> I'll continue reviewing next week..

Good. Thanks for debug and fixing bugs.
Can I do anything for this patch now?

------
With best regards,
Alexander Korotkov.