| Age | Commit message (Collapse) | Author |
|---|
|
Author: Chao Li <li.evan.chao@gmail.com>
Author: David Rowley <dgrowleyml@gmail.com>
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CAEoWx2=hOBCPm-Z=F15twr_23XjHeoXSbifP5GdEdtWona97wQ@mail.gmail.com
|
|
Remove conditionally-compiled code for smaller Datum widths,
and simplify comments that describe cases no longer of interest.
I also fixed up a few more places that were not using
DatumGetIntXX where they should, and made some cosmetic
adjustments such as using sizeof(int64) not sizeof(Datum)
in places where that fit better with the surrounding code.
One thing I remembered while preparing this part is that SP-GiST
stores pass-by-value prefix keys as Datums, so that the on-disk
representation depends on sizeof(Datum). That's even more
unfortunate than the existing commentary makes it out to be,
because now there is a hazard that the change of sizeof(Datum)
will break SP-GiST indexes on 32-bit machines. It appears that
there are no existing SP-GiST opclasses that are actually
affected; and if there are some that I didn't find, the number
of installations that are using them on 32-bit machines is
doubtless tiny. So I'm proceeding on the assumption that we
can get away with this, but it's something to worry about.
(gininsert.c looks like it has a similar problem, but it's okay
because the "tuples" it's constructing are just transient data
within the tuplesort step. That's pretty poorly documented
though, so I added some comments.)
Author: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Reviewed-by: Peter Eisentraut <peter@eisentraut.org>
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/1749799.1752797397@sss.pgh.pa.us
|
|
A couple of new files have been added in the tree with a copyright year
of 2024 while we were already in 2025. These should be marked with
2025, so let's fix them.
Reported-by: Shaik Mohammad Mujeeb <mujeeb.sk.dev@gmail.com>
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CALa6HA4_Wu7-2PV0xv-Q84cT8eG7rTx6bdjUV0Pc=McAwkNMfQ@mail.gmail.com
|
|
The large majority of these have been introduced by recent commits done
in the v18 development cycle.
Author: Alexander Lakhin <exclusion@gmail.com>
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/9a7763ab-5252-429d-a943-b28941e0e28b@gmail.com
|
|
Allow using parallel workers to build a GIN index, similarly to BTREE
and BRIN. For large tables this may result in significant speedup when
the build is CPU-bound.
The work is divided so that each worker builds index entries on a subset
of the table, determined by the regular parallel scan used to read the
data. Each worker uses a local tuplesort to sort and merge the entries
for the same key. The TID lists do not overlap (for a given key), which
means the merge sort simply concatenates the two lists. The merged
entries are written into a shared tuplesort for the leader.
The leader needs to merge the sorted entries again, before writing them
into the index. But this way a significant part of the work happens in
the workers, and the leader is left with merging fewer large entries,
which is more efficient.
Most of the parallelism infrastructure is a simplified copy of the code
used by BTREE indexes, omitting the parts irrelevant for GIN indexes
(e.g. uniqueness checks).
Original patch by me, with reviews and substantial improvements by
Matthias van de Meent, certainly enough to make him a co-author.
Author: Tomas Vondra, Matthias van de Meent
Reviewed-by: Matthias van de Meent, Andy Fan, Kirill Reshke
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/6ab4003f-a8b8-4d75-a67f-f25ad98582dc%40enterprisedb.com
|
