Re: WIP: store additional info in GIN index

Hackers,

Attached patch enables GIN to store additional information with item
pointers in posting lists and trees.
Such additional information could be positions of words, positions of
trigrams, lengths of arrays and so on.
This is the first and most huge patch of serie of GIN improvements which
was presented at PGConf.EU
http://wiki.postgresql.org/images/2/25/Full-text_search_in_PostgreSQL_in_milliseconds-extended-version.pdf

Patch modifies GIN interface as following:
1) Two arguments are added to extractValue
Datum **addInfo, bool **addInfoIsNull
2) Two arguments are added to consistent
Datum addInfo[], bool addInfoIsNull[]
3) New method config is introduced which returns datatype oid of addtional
information (analogy with SP-GiST config method).

Patch completely changes storage in posting lists and leaf pages of posting
trees. It uses varbyte encoding for BlockNumber and OffsetNumber.
BlockNumber are stored incremental in page. Additionally one bit of
OffsetNumber is reserved for additional information NULL flag. To be able
to find position in leaf data page quickly patch introduces small index in
the end of page.

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

On 18.11.2012 22:54, Alexander Korotkov wrote:
> Hackers,
>
> Patch completely changes storage in posting lists and leaf pages of
> posting trees. It uses varbyte encoding for BlockNumber and
> OffsetNumber. BlockNumber are stored incremental in page. Additionally
> one bit of OffsetNumber is reserved for additional information NULL
> flag. To be able to find position in leaf data page quickly patch
> introduces small index in the end of page.

Hi,

I've tried to apply the patch with the current HEAD, but I'm getting
segfaults whenever VACUUM runs (either called directly or from autovac
workers).

The patch applied cleanly against 9b3ac49e and needed a minor fix when
applied on HEAD (because of an assert added to ginRedoCreatePTree), but
that shouldn't be a problem.

The backtrace always looks like this:

Program received signal SIGSEGV, Segmentation fault.
0x00000000004dea3b in processPendingPage (accum=0x7fff15ab8aa0,
ka=0x7fff15ab8a70, page=0x7f88774a7ea0 "", startoff=1) at ginfast.c:785
785 addInfo = index_getattr(itup, 2,
accum->ginstate->tupdesc[curattnum - 1], &addInfoIsNull);
(gdb) bt
#0 0x00000000004dea3b in processPendingPage (accum=0x7fff15ab8aa0,
ka=0x7fff15ab8a70, page=0x7f88774a7ea0 "", startoff=1) at ginfast.c:785
#1 0x00000000004df3c6 in ginInsertCleanup (ginstate=0x7fff15ab97c0,
vac_delay=1 '\001', stats=0xfb0050) at ginfast.c:909
#2 0x00000000004dbe8c in ginbulkdelete (fcinfo=0x7fff15abbfb0) at
ginvacuum.c:747

Reproducing the issue is quite simple:

1) create table messages (id int, txt text, ts tsvector);
2) insert into messages select i, substr(md5(i::text), 0, 4),
to_tsvector('english', substr(md5(i::text), 0, 4))
from generate_series(1,100000) s(i);
3) vacuum messages
4) ... segfault :-(

regards
Tomas

On Sun, Nov 18, 2012 at 4:54 PM, Alexander Korotkov
<aekorotkov(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> Patch completely changes storage in posting lists and leaf pages of posting
> trees. It uses varbyte encoding for BlockNumber and OffsetNumber.
> BlockNumber are stored incremental in page. Additionally one bit of
> OffsetNumber is reserved for additional information NULL flag. To be able to
> find position in leaf data page quickly patch introduces small index in the
> end of page.

This sounds like it means that this would break pg_upgrade, about
which I'm not too keen. Ideally, we'd like to have a situation where
new indexes have additional capabilities, but old indexes are still
usable for things that they could do before. I am not sure whether
that's a realistic goal.

--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company

On 12/4/12 9:34 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 18, 2012 at 4:54 PM, Alexander Korotkov
> <aekorotkov(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>> Patch completely changes storage in posting lists and leaf pages of posting
>> trees. It uses varbyte encoding for BlockNumber and OffsetNumber.
>> BlockNumber are stored incremental in page. Additionally one bit of
>> OffsetNumber is reserved for additional information NULL flag. To be able to
>> find position in leaf data page quickly patch introduces small index in the
>> end of page.
>
> This sounds like it means that this would break pg_upgrade, about
> which I'm not too keen. Ideally, we'd like to have a situation where
> new indexes have additional capabilities, but old indexes are still
> usable for things that they could do before. I am not sure whether
> that's a realistic goal.

Is there a reason not to create this as a new type of index? "GIN2" or
whatever?

--
Josh Berkus
PostgreSQL Experts Inc.
http://pgexperts.com

On 2012-12-04 10:04:03 -0800, Josh Berkus wrote:
> On 12/4/12 9:34 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
> > On Sun, Nov 18, 2012 at 4:54 PM, Alexander Korotkov
> > <aekorotkov(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> >> Patch completely changes storage in posting lists and leaf pages of posting
> >> trees. It uses varbyte encoding for BlockNumber and OffsetNumber.
> >> BlockNumber are stored incremental in page. Additionally one bit of
> >> OffsetNumber is reserved for additional information NULL flag. To be able to
> >> find position in leaf data page quickly patch introduces small index in the
> >> end of page.
> >
> > This sounds like it means that this would break pg_upgrade, about
> > which I'm not too keen. Ideally, we'd like to have a situation where
> > new indexes have additional capabilities, but old indexes are still
> > usable for things that they could do before. I am not sure whether
> > that's a realistic goal.
>
> Is there a reason not to create this as a new type of index? "GIN2" or
> whatever?

Aren't the obvious maintenance problems enough?

Greetings,

Andres Freund

--
Andres Freund http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services

Hi!

On Sun, Dec 2, 2012 at 5:02 AM, Tomas Vondra <tv(at)fuzzy(dot)cz> wrote:

> I've tried to apply the patch with the current HEAD, but I'm getting
> segfaults whenever VACUUM runs (either called directly or from autovac
> workers).
>
> The patch applied cleanly against 9b3ac49e and needed a minor fix when
> applied on HEAD (because of an assert added to ginRedoCreatePTree), but
> that shouldn't be a problem.
>

Thanks for testing! Patch is rebased with HEAD. The bug you reported was
fixed.

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

On Tue, Dec 4, 2012 at 9:34 PM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:

> On Sun, Nov 18, 2012 at 4:54 PM, Alexander Korotkov
> <aekorotkov(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> > Patch completely changes storage in posting lists and leaf pages of
> posting
> > trees. It uses varbyte encoding for BlockNumber and OffsetNumber.
> > BlockNumber are stored incremental in page. Additionally one bit of
> > OffsetNumber is reserved for additional information NULL flag. To be
> able to
> > find position in leaf data page quickly patch introduces small index in
> the
> > end of page.
>
> This sounds like it means that this would break pg_upgrade, about
> which I'm not too keen. Ideally, we'd like to have a situation where
> new indexes have additional capabilities, but old indexes are still
> usable for things that they could do before. I am not sure whether
> that's a realistic goal.

This means to have two versions of code which deals with posting trees and
lists. For me it seems unlikely we have resources for maintenance of this.

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

Alexander Korotkov escribió:
> On Tue, Dec 4, 2012 at 9:34 PM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
> > On Sun, Nov 18, 2012 at 4:54 PM, Alexander Korotkov
> > <aekorotkov(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> > > Patch completely changes storage in posting lists and leaf pages of
> > posting
> > > trees. It uses varbyte encoding for BlockNumber and OffsetNumber.
> > > BlockNumber are stored incremental in page. Additionally one bit of
> > > OffsetNumber is reserved for additional information NULL flag. To be
> > able to
> > > find position in leaf data page quickly patch introduces small index in
> > the
> > > end of page.
> >
> > This sounds like it means that this would break pg_upgrade, about
> > which I'm not too keen. Ideally, we'd like to have a situation where
> > new indexes have additional capabilities, but old indexes are still
> > usable for things that they could do before. I am not sure whether
> > that's a realistic goal.
>
> This means to have two versions of code which deals with posting trees and
> lists. For me it seems unlikely we have resources for maintenance of this.

Witness how GIN has gone with unfixed bugs for months, even though
patches to fix them have been posted. We don't have the manpower to
maintain even *one* such implementation, let alone two.

Maybe we can mark GIN indexes as invalid after pg_upgrade somehow, so
that they require reindex in the new cluster before they can be used for
queries or index updates.

--
Álvaro Herrera http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services

On Tue, Dec 4, 2012 at 05:35:24PM -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> > This means to have two versions of code which deals with posting trees and
> > lists. For me it seems unlikely we have resources for maintenance of this.
>
> Witness how GIN has gone with unfixed bugs for months, even though
> patches to fix them have been posted. We don't have the manpower to
> maintain even *one* such implementation, let alone two.
>
> Maybe we can mark GIN indexes as invalid after pg_upgrade somehow, so
> that they require reindex in the new cluster before they can be used for
> queries or index updates.

Yes, pg_upgrade has infrastructure to do that.

--
Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> http://momjian.us
EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com

+ It's impossible for everything to be true. +

On 4.12.2012 20:12, Alexander Korotkov wrote:
> Hi!
>
> On Sun, Dec 2, 2012 at 5:02 AM, Tomas Vondra <tv(at)fuzzy(dot)cz
> <mailto:tv(at)fuzzy(dot)cz>> wrote:
>
> I've tried to apply the patch with the current HEAD, but I'm getting
> segfaults whenever VACUUM runs (either called directly or from autovac
> workers).
>
> The patch applied cleanly against 9b3ac49e and needed a minor fix when
> applied on HEAD (because of an assert added to ginRedoCreatePTree), but
> that shouldn't be a problem.
>
>
> Thanks for testing! Patch is rebased with HEAD. The bug you reported was
> fixed.

Applies fine, but I get a segfault in dataPlaceToPage at gindatapage.c.
The whole backtrace is here: http://pastebin.com/YEPuWeuV

The messages written into PostgreSQL log are quite variable - usually it
looks like this:

2012-12-04 22:31:08 CET 31839 LOG: database system was not properly
shut down; automatic recovery in progress
2012-12-04 22:31:08 CET 31839 LOG: redo starts at 0/68A76E48
2012-12-04 22:31:08 CET 31839 LOG: unexpected pageaddr 0/1BE64000 in
log segment 000000010000000000000069, offset 15089664
2012-12-04 22:31:08 CET 31839 LOG: redo done at 0/69E63638

but I've seen this message too

2012-12-04 22:20:29 CET 31709 LOG: database system was not properly
shut down; automatic recovery in progress
2012-12-04 22:20:29 CET 31709 LOG: redo starts at 0/AEAFAF8
2012-12-04 22:20:29 CET 31709 LOG: record with zero length at 0/C7D5698
2012-12-04 22:20:29 CET 31709 LOG: redo done at 0/C7D55E

I wasn't able to prepare a simple testcase to reproduce this, so I've
attached two files from my "fun project" where I noticed it. It's a
simple DB + a bit of Python for indexing mbox archives inside Pg.

- create.sql - a database structure with a bunch of GIN indexes on
tsvector columns on "messages" table

- load.py - script for parsing mbox archives / loading them into the
"messages" table (warning: it's a bit messy)

Usage:

1) create the DB structure
$ createdb archives
$ psql archives < create.sql

2) fetch some archives (I consistently get SIGSEGV after first three)
$ wget
http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/mbox/pgsql-hackers.1997-01.gz
$ wget
http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/mbox/pgsql-hackers.1997-02.gz
$ wget
http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/mbox/pgsql-hackers.1997-03.gz

3) gunzip and load them using the python script
$ gunzip pgsql-hackers.*.gz
$ ./load.py --db archives pgsql-hackers.*

4) et voila - a SIGSEGV :-(

I suspect this might be related to the fact that the load.py script uses
savepoints quite heavily to handle UNIQUE_VIOLATION (duplicate messages).

Tomas

Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> writes:
> Maybe we can mark GIN indexes as invalid after pg_upgrade somehow, so
> that they require reindex in the new cluster before they can be used for
> queries or index updates.

Bumping the version number in the GIN metapage would be sufficient.

regards, tom lane

On Tue, Dec 4, 2012 at 05:35:27PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> writes:
> > Maybe we can mark GIN indexes as invalid after pg_upgrade somehow, so
> > that they require reindex in the new cluster before they can be used for
> > queries or index updates.
>
> Bumping the version number in the GIN metapage would be sufficient.

And it is easy for pg_upgrade to report which indexes need rebuilding,
and it can create a script file to do the reindexing.

--
Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> http://momjian.us
EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com

+ It's impossible for everything to be true. +

On Wed, Dec 5, 2012 at 1:56 AM, Tomas Vondra <tv(at)fuzzy(dot)cz> wrote:

> On 4.12.2012 20:12, Alexander Korotkov wrote:
> > Hi!
> >
> > On Sun, Dec 2, 2012 at 5:02 AM, Tomas Vondra <tv(at)fuzzy(dot)cz
> > <mailto:tv(at)fuzzy(dot)cz>> wrote:
> >
> > I've tried to apply the patch with the current HEAD, but I'm getting
> > segfaults whenever VACUUM runs (either called directly or from
> autovac
> > workers).
> >
> > The patch applied cleanly against 9b3ac49e and needed a minor fix
> when
> > applied on HEAD (because of an assert added to ginRedoCreatePTree),
> but
> > that shouldn't be a problem.
> >
> >
> > Thanks for testing! Patch is rebased with HEAD. The bug you reported was
> > fixed.
>
> Applies fine, but I get a segfault in dataPlaceToPage at gindatapage.c.
> The whole backtrace is here: http://pastebin.com/YEPuWeuV
>
> The messages written into PostgreSQL log are quite variable - usually it
> looks like this:
>
> 2012-12-04 22:31:08 CET 31839 LOG: database system was not properly
> shut down; automatic recovery in progress
> 2012-12-04 22:31:08 CET 31839 LOG: redo starts at 0/68A76E48
> 2012-12-04 22:31:08 CET 31839 LOG: unexpected pageaddr 0/1BE64000 in
> log segment 000000010000000000000069, offset 15089664
> 2012-12-04 22:31:08 CET 31839 LOG: redo done at 0/69E63638
>
> but I've seen this message too
>
> 2012-12-04 22:20:29 CET 31709 LOG: database system was not properly
> shut down; automatic recovery in progress
> 2012-12-04 22:20:29 CET 31709 LOG: redo starts at 0/AEAFAF8
> 2012-12-04 22:20:29 CET 31709 LOG: record with zero length at 0/C7D5698
> 2012-12-04 22:20:29 CET 31709 LOG: redo done at 0/C7D55E
>
>
> I wasn't able to prepare a simple testcase to reproduce this, so I've
> attached two files from my "fun project" where I noticed it. It's a
> simple DB + a bit of Python for indexing mbox archives inside Pg.
>
> - create.sql - a database structure with a bunch of GIN indexes on
> tsvector columns on "messages" table
>
> - load.py - script for parsing mbox archives / loading them into the
> "messages" table (warning: it's a bit messy)
>
>
> Usage:
>
> 1) create the DB structure
> $ createdb archives
> $ psql archives < create.sql
>
> 2) fetch some archives (I consistently get SIGSEGV after first three)
> $ wget
> http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/mbox/pgsql-hackers.1997-01.gz
> $ wget
> http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/mbox/pgsql-hackers.1997-02.gz
> $ wget
> http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/mbox/pgsql-hackers.1997-03.gz
>
> 3) gunzip and load them using the python script
> $ gunzip pgsql-hackers.*.gz
> $ ./load.py --db archives pgsql-hackers.*
>
> 4) et voila - a SIGSEGV :-(
>
>
> I suspect this might be related to the fact that the load.py script uses
> savepoints quite heavily to handle UNIQUE_VIOLATION (duplicate messages).
>

Thanks for bug report. It is fixed in the attached patch.

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

On 5.12.2012 09:10, Alexander Korotkov wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 5, 2012 at 1:56 AM, Tomas Vondra <tv(at)fuzzy(dot)cz
> <mailto:tv(at)fuzzy(dot)cz>> wrote:
>
> Thanks for bug report. It is fixed in the attached patch.

Hi,

I gave it another try and this time it went fine - I didn't get any
segfault when loading the data, which is a good news.

Then I've run a simple benchmarking script, and the results are not as
good as I expected, actually I'm getting much worse performance than
with the original GIN index.

The following table contains the time of loading the data (not a big
difference), and number of queries per minute for various number of
words in the query.

The queries looks like this

SELECT id FROM messages
WHERE body_tsvector @@ plainto_tsquery('english', 'word1 word2 ...')

so it's really the simplest form of FTS query possible.

without patch | with patch
--------------------------------------------
loading 750 sec | 770 sec
1 word 1500 | 1100
2 words 23000 | 9800
3 words 24000 | 9700
4 words 16000 | 7200
--------------------------------------------

I'm not saying this is a perfect benchmark, but the differences (of
querying) are pretty huge. Not sure where this difference comes from,
but it seems to be quite consistent (I usually get +-10% results, which
is negligible considering the huge difference).

Is this an expected behaviour that will be fixed by another patch?

The database contains ~680k messages from the mailing list archives,
i.e. about 900 MB of data (in the table), and the GIN index on tsvector
is about 900MB too. So the whole dataset nicely fits into memory (8GB
RAM), and it seems to be completely CPU bound (no I/O activity at all).

The configuration was exactly the same in both cases

shared buffers = 1GB
work mem = 64 MB
maintenance work mem = 256 MB

I can either upload the database somewhere, or provide the benchmarking
script if needed.

Tomas

Hi!

On Thu, Dec 6, 2012 at 5:44 AM, Tomas Vondra <tv(at)fuzzy(dot)cz> wrote:

> Then I've run a simple benchmarking script, and the results are not as
> good as I expected, actually I'm getting much worse performance than
> with the original GIN index.
>
> The following table contains the time of loading the data (not a big
> difference), and number of queries per minute for various number of
> words in the query.
>
> The queries looks like this
>
> SELECT id FROM messages
> WHERE body_tsvector @@ plainto_tsquery('english', 'word1 word2 ...')
>
> so it's really the simplest form of FTS query possible.
>
> without patch | with patch
> --------------------------------------------
> loading 750 sec | 770 sec
> 1 word 1500 | 1100
> 2 words 23000 | 9800
> 3 words 24000 | 9700
> 4 words 16000 | 7200
> --------------------------------------------
>
> I'm not saying this is a perfect benchmark, but the differences (of
> querying) are pretty huge. Not sure where this difference comes from,
> but it seems to be quite consistent (I usually get +-10% results, which
> is negligible considering the huge difference).
>
> Is this an expected behaviour that will be fixed by another patch?
>

Another patches which significantly accelerate index search will be
provided. This patch changes only GIN posting lists/trees storage. However,
it wasn't expected that this patch significantly changes index scan speed
in any direction.

The database contains ~680k messages from the mailing list archives,
> i.e. about 900 MB of data (in the table), and the GIN index on tsvector
> is about 900MB too. So the whole dataset nicely fits into memory (8GB
> RAM), and it seems to be completely CPU bound (no I/O activity at all).
>
> The configuration was exactly the same in both cases
>
> shared buffers = 1GB
> work mem = 64 MB
> maintenance work mem = 256 MB
>
> I can either upload the database somewhere, or provide the benchmarking
> script if needed.

Unfortunately, I can't reproduce such huge slowdown on my testcases. Could
you share both database and benchmarking script?

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

Hi!

On 22.12.2012 17:15, Alexander Korotkov wrote:
> I'm not saying this is a perfect benchmark, but the differences (of
> querying) are pretty huge. Not sure where this difference comes from,
> but it seems to be quite consistent (I usually get +-10% results, which
> is negligible considering the huge difference).
>
> Is this an expected behaviour that will be fixed by another patch?
>
>
> Another patches which significantly accelerate index search will be
> provided. This patch changes only GIN posting lists/trees storage.
> However, it wasn't expected that this patch significantly changes index
> scan speed in any direction.

That was exactly my expectation - probably not an improvement, but
definitely not a worse performance.

>
> The database contains ~680k messages from the mailing list archives,
> i.e. about 900 MB of data (in the table), and the GIN index on tsvector
> is about 900MB too. So the whole dataset nicely fits into memory (8GB
> RAM), and it seems to be completely CPU bound (no I/O activity at all).
>
> The configuration was exactly the same in both cases
>
> shared buffers = 1GB
> work mem = 64 MB
> maintenance work mem = 256 MB
>
> I can either upload the database somewhere, or provide the benchmarking
> script if needed.
>
>
> Unfortunately, I can't reproduce such huge slowdown on my testcases.
> Could you share both database and benchmarking script?

It's strange, but no matter what I do I can't reproduce those results
(with the significant performance decrease). So either I've done some
strange mistake when running those tests, or there was something wrong
with my system, or whatever :-(

But when running the benchmarks now (double-checked everything, properly
repeated the tests, ...), I've noticed a different behaviour. But first
some info about the scripts I use for testing.

All the scripts are available here:

https://bitbucket.org/tvondra/archie

It's my "hobby project" implementing fulltext mbox archive. It should be
usable but it's still a bit WIP so let me know in case of any issues.

The README should give you all the instructions on how to setup and load
the database. I'm using ~1700 mbox files downloaded from
http://archives.postgresql.org/ for these lists (until 2012/11):

pgadmin-hackers
pgsql-advocacy
pgsql-announce
pgsql-bugs
pgsql-general
pgsql-hackers
pgsql-jdbc
pgsql-novice
pgsql-odbc
pgsql-patches
pgsql-sql

which in the end gives ~677k rows in the 'messages' table, occupying
~5.5GB disk space (including all the indexes etc).

Once you have the data loaded, you need to warmup the database and then
start benchmarking it - I'm using the warmup.py script to both things.
The script is quite simple, it basically just

To warmup the DB, just run this

./warmup.py --db archie --duration 300

until the %util drops near 0 (assuming you have enough RAM to fit the
whole database into memory). Then I usually do this as a benchmarking

./warmup.py --db archie --duration 300 --no-hash \
--no-thread --words 1

./warmup.py --db archie --duration 300 --no-hash \
--no-thread --words 2

which runs 60-second tests and outputs one line for worker (by default
equal to the number of CPUs).

The script itself is very simple, it fetches a random message and uses
the tsvector column as a source of words for the actual benchmark. It
takes N words from the tsvector, splits them into groups and performs a
simple fulltext query using plainto_tsquery('word1 word2 ...'). At the
end it prints info including the number of queries per second.

I've run the tests on the current master with and without the v3 patch.
I've tested it with 1GB or 2GB shared buffers, and 32MB or 64MB work mem.

The tests were run for 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 words, and I've repeated it five
times for each configuration. Duration of each run was 5-minutes.

These are the averages (from the 5 runs) of queries per second for each
combination of parameters:

1 2 3 4 5
----------------------------------------------------
master 1GB/32MB 19 179 165 127 99
patched 1GB/32MB 19 175 163 124 96

master 1GB/64MB 20 181 165 127 99
patched 1GB/64MB 19 174 159 120 95

master 2GB/32MB 27 181 165 127 98
patched 2GB/32MB 25 176 156 120 93

master 2GB/64MB 27 180 166 128 102
patched 2GB/64MB 40 402 364 245 176

There's no significant difference in performance, except for the
2GB/64MB combination. And in that case it's actually the opposite
direction than I've reported before - i.e. this time it's up to 100%
faster than the unpatched master. The results are pretty consistent
(very small variance across the repeated runs), so I'm not sure about
the previous results.

Any idea what might cause such behavior? Why should it happen only with
this particular combination of shared_buffers and work_mem?

kind regards
Tomas

The GIN changes don't seem to have progressed in some time, and some of
the most recent activity
(http://archives.postgresql.org/message-id/50BFF89A.7080908@fuzzy.cz)
suggests unconvincing test results.

Is this work considered to be a dead-end - a good idea that didn't work
out in practice? Or do you think it still has merit and can be made
useful and ready for inclusion?

Given the activity level I would like to bounce this patch, either as
"returned with feedback" if you want to take another go at it post-9.3,
or as "rejected" if you think the idea won't go anywhere. Please let me
know how you think it looks.

--
Craig Ringer http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services

On Sun, Mar 3, 2013 at 6:53 PM, Craig Ringer <craig(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:

> The GIN changes don't seem to have progressed in some time, and some of
> the most recent activity
> (http://archives.postgresql.org/message-id/50BFF89A.7080908@fuzzy.cz)
> suggests unconvincing test results.
>

Actually, _most_ recent acitivity showing inverse
http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/50D79861.3030303@fuzzy.cz
However, this patch itself is not expected to give significant changes in
search speed. Testing results with both double acceleration and slowdown
looks strange for me. I can't either reproduce it or explain.

Is this work considered to be a dead-end - a good idea that didn't work
> out in practice? Or do you think it still has merit and can be made
> useful and ready for inclusion?
>

This patch is only first of future serie of GIN improvements patches. It
doesn't change anything significant in search, only in storage. This time
we are working on design of rest of patches in order to put them on the
consideration. This lead to lack of attention to this patch.

Given the activity level I would like to bounce this patch, either as
> "returned with feedback" if you want to take another go at it post-9.3,
> or as "rejected" if you think the idea won't go anywhere. Please let me
> know how you think it looks.
>

"Returned with feedback", definitely.

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

On 03/04/2013 01:29 AM, Alexander Korotkov wrote:

Given the activity level I would like to bounce this patch, either as
"returned with feedback" if you want to take another go at it post-9.3,
or as "rejected" if you think the idea won't go anywhere. Please let me
know how you think it looks.

"Returned with feedback", definitely.

Done, and thankyou for taking the time to explain and write such a clear
response that'll be useful if others have reason to look into the same
area later.

--
Craig Ringer http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services