postgresql/src/backend/access/nbtree/nbtsort.c

1303 lines
36 KiB
C
Raw Normal View History

/*-------------------------------------------------------------------------
* btsort.c--
*
* Copyright (c) 1994, Regents of the University of California
*
*
* IDENTIFICATION
* $Id: nbtsort.c,v 1.10 1997/02/14 22:47:19 momjian Exp $
*
* NOTES
*
* what we do is:
* - generate a set of initial one-block runs, distributed round-robin
* between the output tapes.
* - for each pass,
* - swap input and output tape sets, rewinding both and truncating
* the output tapes.
* - merge the current run in each input tape to the current output
* tape.
* - when each input run has been exhausted, switch to another output
* tape and start processing another run.
* - when we have fewer runs than tapes, we know we are ready to start
What looks like some *major* improvements to btree indexing... Patches from: aoki@CS.Berkeley.EDU (Paul M. Aoki) i gave jolly my btree bulkload code a long, long time ago but never gave him a bunch of my bugfixes. here's a diff against the 6.0 baseline. for some reason, this code has slowed down somewhat relative to the insertion-build code on very small tables. don't know why -- it used to be within about 10%. anyway, here are some (highly unscientific!) timings on a dec 3000/300 for synthetic tables with 10k, 100k and 1000k tuples (basically, 1mb, 10mb and 100mb heaps). 'c' means clustered (pre-sorted) inputs and 'u' means unclustered (randomly ordered) inputs. the 10k table basically fits in the buffer pool, but the 100k and 1000k tables don't. as you can see, insertion build is fine if you've sorted your heaps on your index key or if your heap fits in core, but is absolutely horrible on unordered data (yes, that's 7.5 hours to index 100mb of data...) because of the zillions of random i/os. if it doesn't work for you for whatever reason, you can always turn it back off by flipping the FastBuild flag in nbtree.c. i don't have time to maintain it. good luck! baseline code: time psql -c 'create index c10 on k10 using btree (c int4_ops)' bttest real 8.6 time psql -c 'create index u10 on k10 using btree (b int4_ops)' bttest real 9.1 time psql -c 'create index c100 on k100 using btree (c int4_ops)' bttest real 59.2 time psql -c 'create index u100 on k100 using btree (b int4_ops)' bttest real 652.4 time psql -c 'create index c1000 on k1000 using btree (c int4_ops)' bttest real 636.1 time psql -c 'create index u1000 on k1000 using btree (b int4_ops)' bttest real 26772.9 bulkloading code: time psql -c 'create index c10 on k10 using btree (c int4_ops)' bttest real 11.3 time psql -c 'create index u10 on k10 using btree (b int4_ops)' bttest real 10.4 time psql -c 'create index c100 on k100 using btree (c int4_ops)' bttest real 59.5 time psql -c 'create index u100 on k100 using btree (b int4_ops)' bttest real 63.5 time psql -c 'create index c1000 on k1000 using btree (c int4_ops)' bttest real 636.9 time psql -c 'create index u1000 on k1000 using btree (b int4_ops)' bttest real 701.0
1997-02-12 06:04:52 +01:00
* merging into the btree leaf pages. (i.e., we do not have to wait
* until we have exactly one tape.)
* - as we extract tuples from the final runs, we build the pages for
* each level. when we have only one page on a level, it must be the
* root -- it can be attached to the btree metapage and we are done.
*
* conventions:
* - external interface routines take in and return "void *" for their
What looks like some *major* improvements to btree indexing... Patches from: aoki@CS.Berkeley.EDU (Paul M. Aoki) i gave jolly my btree bulkload code a long, long time ago but never gave him a bunch of my bugfixes. here's a diff against the 6.0 baseline. for some reason, this code has slowed down somewhat relative to the insertion-build code on very small tables. don't know why -- it used to be within about 10%. anyway, here are some (highly unscientific!) timings on a dec 3000/300 for synthetic tables with 10k, 100k and 1000k tuples (basically, 1mb, 10mb and 100mb heaps). 'c' means clustered (pre-sorted) inputs and 'u' means unclustered (randomly ordered) inputs. the 10k table basically fits in the buffer pool, but the 100k and 1000k tables don't. as you can see, insertion build is fine if you've sorted your heaps on your index key or if your heap fits in core, but is absolutely horrible on unordered data (yes, that's 7.5 hours to index 100mb of data...) because of the zillions of random i/os. if it doesn't work for you for whatever reason, you can always turn it back off by flipping the FastBuild flag in nbtree.c. i don't have time to maintain it. good luck! baseline code: time psql -c 'create index c10 on k10 using btree (c int4_ops)' bttest real 8.6 time psql -c 'create index u10 on k10 using btree (b int4_ops)' bttest real 9.1 time psql -c 'create index c100 on k100 using btree (c int4_ops)' bttest real 59.2 time psql -c 'create index u100 on k100 using btree (b int4_ops)' bttest real 652.4 time psql -c 'create index c1000 on k1000 using btree (c int4_ops)' bttest real 636.1 time psql -c 'create index u1000 on k1000 using btree (b int4_ops)' bttest real 26772.9 bulkloading code: time psql -c 'create index c10 on k10 using btree (c int4_ops)' bttest real 11.3 time psql -c 'create index u10 on k10 using btree (b int4_ops)' bttest real 10.4 time psql -c 'create index c100 on k100 using btree (c int4_ops)' bttest real 59.5 time psql -c 'create index u100 on k100 using btree (b int4_ops)' bttest real 63.5 time psql -c 'create index c1000 on k1000 using btree (c int4_ops)' bttest real 636.9 time psql -c 'create index u1000 on k1000 using btree (b int4_ops)' bttest real 701.0
1997-02-12 06:04:52 +01:00
* opaque handles. this is for modularity reasons.
*
* this code is moderately slow (~10% slower) compared to the regular
* btree (insertion) build code on sorted or well-clustered data. on
* random data, however, the insertion build code is unusable -- the
* difference on a 60MB heap is a factor of 15 because the random
* probes into the btree thrash the buffer pool.
*
* this code currently packs the pages to 100% of capacity. this is
* not wise, since *any* insertion will cause splitting. filling to
* something like the standard 70% steady-state load factor for btrees
* would probably be better.
*
* somebody desperately needs to figure out how to do a better job of
* balancing the merge passes -- the fan-in on the final merges can be
* pretty poor, which is bad for performance.
*-------------------------------------------------------------------------
*/
#include <fcntl.h>
1996-11-05 11:35:38 +01:00
#include <postgres.h>
1996-11-05 11:35:38 +01:00
#include <utils/memutils.h>
#include <storage/bufpage.h>
#include <access/nbtree.h>
#include <storage/bufmgr.h>
#ifndef HAVE_MEMMOVE
1996-11-05 11:35:38 +01:00
# include <regex/utils.h>
#else
# include <string.h>
#endif
What looks like some *major* improvements to btree indexing... Patches from: aoki@CS.Berkeley.EDU (Paul M. Aoki) i gave jolly my btree bulkload code a long, long time ago but never gave him a bunch of my bugfixes. here's a diff against the 6.0 baseline. for some reason, this code has slowed down somewhat relative to the insertion-build code on very small tables. don't know why -- it used to be within about 10%. anyway, here are some (highly unscientific!) timings on a dec 3000/300 for synthetic tables with 10k, 100k and 1000k tuples (basically, 1mb, 10mb and 100mb heaps). 'c' means clustered (pre-sorted) inputs and 'u' means unclustered (randomly ordered) inputs. the 10k table basically fits in the buffer pool, but the 100k and 1000k tables don't. as you can see, insertion build is fine if you've sorted your heaps on your index key or if your heap fits in core, but is absolutely horrible on unordered data (yes, that's 7.5 hours to index 100mb of data...) because of the zillions of random i/os. if it doesn't work for you for whatever reason, you can always turn it back off by flipping the FastBuild flag in nbtree.c. i don't have time to maintain it. good luck! baseline code: time psql -c 'create index c10 on k10 using btree (c int4_ops)' bttest real 8.6 time psql -c 'create index u10 on k10 using btree (b int4_ops)' bttest real 9.1 time psql -c 'create index c100 on k100 using btree (c int4_ops)' bttest real 59.2 time psql -c 'create index u100 on k100 using btree (b int4_ops)' bttest real 652.4 time psql -c 'create index c1000 on k1000 using btree (c int4_ops)' bttest real 636.1 time psql -c 'create index u1000 on k1000 using btree (b int4_ops)' bttest real 26772.9 bulkloading code: time psql -c 'create index c10 on k10 using btree (c int4_ops)' bttest real 11.3 time psql -c 'create index u10 on k10 using btree (b int4_ops)' bttest real 10.4 time psql -c 'create index c100 on k100 using btree (c int4_ops)' bttest real 59.5 time psql -c 'create index u100 on k100 using btree (b int4_ops)' bttest real 63.5 time psql -c 'create index c1000 on k1000 using btree (c int4_ops)' bttest real 636.9 time psql -c 'create index u1000 on k1000 using btree (b int4_ops)' bttest real 701.0
1997-02-12 06:04:52 +01:00
/*
* turn on debugging output.
*
* XXX this code just does a numeric printf of the index key, so it's
* only really useful for integer keys.
*/
/*#define FASTBUILD_DEBUG*/
#define FASTBUILD_SPOOL
#define FASTBUILD_MERGE
#define MAXTAPES (7)
What looks like some *major* improvements to btree indexing... Patches from: aoki@CS.Berkeley.EDU (Paul M. Aoki) i gave jolly my btree bulkload code a long, long time ago but never gave him a bunch of my bugfixes. here's a diff against the 6.0 baseline. for some reason, this code has slowed down somewhat relative to the insertion-build code on very small tables. don't know why -- it used to be within about 10%. anyway, here are some (highly unscientific!) timings on a dec 3000/300 for synthetic tables with 10k, 100k and 1000k tuples (basically, 1mb, 10mb and 100mb heaps). 'c' means clustered (pre-sorted) inputs and 'u' means unclustered (randomly ordered) inputs. the 10k table basically fits in the buffer pool, but the 100k and 1000k tables don't. as you can see, insertion build is fine if you've sorted your heaps on your index key or if your heap fits in core, but is absolutely horrible on unordered data (yes, that's 7.5 hours to index 100mb of data...) because of the zillions of random i/os. if it doesn't work for you for whatever reason, you can always turn it back off by flipping the FastBuild flag in nbtree.c. i don't have time to maintain it. good luck! baseline code: time psql -c 'create index c10 on k10 using btree (c int4_ops)' bttest real 8.6 time psql -c 'create index u10 on k10 using btree (b int4_ops)' bttest real 9.1 time psql -c 'create index c100 on k100 using btree (c int4_ops)' bttest real 59.2 time psql -c 'create index u100 on k100 using btree (b int4_ops)' bttest real 652.4 time psql -c 'create index c1000 on k1000 using btree (c int4_ops)' bttest real 636.1 time psql -c 'create index u1000 on k1000 using btree (b int4_ops)' bttest real 26772.9 bulkloading code: time psql -c 'create index c10 on k10 using btree (c int4_ops)' bttest real 11.3 time psql -c 'create index u10 on k10 using btree (b int4_ops)' bttest real 10.4 time psql -c 'create index c100 on k100 using btree (c int4_ops)' bttest real 59.5 time psql -c 'create index u100 on k100 using btree (b int4_ops)' bttest real 63.5 time psql -c 'create index c1000 on k1000 using btree (c int4_ops)' bttest real 636.9 time psql -c 'create index u1000 on k1000 using btree (b int4_ops)' bttest real 701.0
1997-02-12 06:04:52 +01:00
#define TAPEBLCKSZ (MAXBLCKSZ << 2)
#define TAPETEMP "pg_btsortXXXXXX"
What looks like some *major* improvements to btree indexing... Patches from: aoki@CS.Berkeley.EDU (Paul M. Aoki) i gave jolly my btree bulkload code a long, long time ago but never gave him a bunch of my bugfixes. here's a diff against the 6.0 baseline. for some reason, this code has slowed down somewhat relative to the insertion-build code on very small tables. don't know why -- it used to be within about 10%. anyway, here are some (highly unscientific!) timings on a dec 3000/300 for synthetic tables with 10k, 100k and 1000k tuples (basically, 1mb, 10mb and 100mb heaps). 'c' means clustered (pre-sorted) inputs and 'u' means unclustered (randomly ordered) inputs. the 10k table basically fits in the buffer pool, but the 100k and 1000k tables don't. as you can see, insertion build is fine if you've sorted your heaps on your index key or if your heap fits in core, but is absolutely horrible on unordered data (yes, that's 7.5 hours to index 100mb of data...) because of the zillions of random i/os. if it doesn't work for you for whatever reason, you can always turn it back off by flipping the FastBuild flag in nbtree.c. i don't have time to maintain it. good luck! baseline code: time psql -c 'create index c10 on k10 using btree (c int4_ops)' bttest real 8.6 time psql -c 'create index u10 on k10 using btree (b int4_ops)' bttest real 9.1 time psql -c 'create index c100 on k100 using btree (c int4_ops)' bttest real 59.2 time psql -c 'create index u100 on k100 using btree (b int4_ops)' bttest real 652.4 time psql -c 'create index c1000 on k1000 using btree (c int4_ops)' bttest real 636.1 time psql -c 'create index u1000 on k1000 using btree (b int4_ops)' bttest real 26772.9 bulkloading code: time psql -c 'create index c10 on k10 using btree (c int4_ops)' bttest real 11.3 time psql -c 'create index u10 on k10 using btree (b int4_ops)' bttest real 10.4 time psql -c 'create index c100 on k100 using btree (c int4_ops)' bttest real 59.5 time psql -c 'create index u100 on k100 using btree (b int4_ops)' bttest real 63.5 time psql -c 'create index c1000 on k1000 using btree (c int4_ops)' bttest real 636.9 time psql -c 'create index u1000 on k1000 using btree (b int4_ops)' bttest real 701.0
1997-02-12 06:04:52 +01:00
extern int NDirectFileRead;
extern int NDirectFileWrite;
extern char *mktemp(char *template);
/*-------------------------------------------------------------------------
* sorting comparison routine - returns {-1,0,1} depending on whether
* the key in the left BTItem is {<,=,>} the key in the right BTItem.
*
* we want to use _bt_isortcmp as a comparison function for qsort(3),
* but it needs extra arguments, so we "pass them in" as global
* variables. ick. fortunately, they are the same throughout the
* build, so we need do this only once. this is why you must call
* _bt_isortcmpinit before the call to qsort(3).
*
* a NULL BTItem is always assumed to be greater than any actual
* value; our heap routines (see below) assume that the smallest
* element in the heap is returned. that way, NULL values from the
* exhausted tapes can sift down to the bottom of the heap. in point
* of fact we just don't replace the elements of exhausted tapes, but
* what the heck.
* *-------------------------------------------------------------------------
*/
What looks like some *major* improvements to btree indexing... Patches from: aoki@CS.Berkeley.EDU (Paul M. Aoki) i gave jolly my btree bulkload code a long, long time ago but never gave him a bunch of my bugfixes. here's a diff against the 6.0 baseline. for some reason, this code has slowed down somewhat relative to the insertion-build code on very small tables. don't know why -- it used to be within about 10%. anyway, here are some (highly unscientific!) timings on a dec 3000/300 for synthetic tables with 10k, 100k and 1000k tuples (basically, 1mb, 10mb and 100mb heaps). 'c' means clustered (pre-sorted) inputs and 'u' means unclustered (randomly ordered) inputs. the 10k table basically fits in the buffer pool, but the 100k and 1000k tables don't. as you can see, insertion build is fine if you've sorted your heaps on your index key or if your heap fits in core, but is absolutely horrible on unordered data (yes, that's 7.5 hours to index 100mb of data...) because of the zillions of random i/os. if it doesn't work for you for whatever reason, you can always turn it back off by flipping the FastBuild flag in nbtree.c. i don't have time to maintain it. good luck! baseline code: time psql -c 'create index c10 on k10 using btree (c int4_ops)' bttest real 8.6 time psql -c 'create index u10 on k10 using btree (b int4_ops)' bttest real 9.1 time psql -c 'create index c100 on k100 using btree (c int4_ops)' bttest real 59.2 time psql -c 'create index u100 on k100 using btree (b int4_ops)' bttest real 652.4 time psql -c 'create index c1000 on k1000 using btree (c int4_ops)' bttest real 636.1 time psql -c 'create index u1000 on k1000 using btree (b int4_ops)' bttest real 26772.9 bulkloading code: time psql -c 'create index c10 on k10 using btree (c int4_ops)' bttest real 11.3 time psql -c 'create index u10 on k10 using btree (b int4_ops)' bttest real 10.4 time psql -c 'create index c100 on k100 using btree (c int4_ops)' bttest real 59.5 time psql -c 'create index u100 on k100 using btree (b int4_ops)' bttest real 63.5 time psql -c 'create index c1000 on k1000 using btree (c int4_ops)' bttest real 636.9 time psql -c 'create index u1000 on k1000 using btree (b int4_ops)' bttest real 701.0
1997-02-12 06:04:52 +01:00
typedef struct {
Datum btsk_datum;
BTItem btsk_item;
} BTSortKey;
static Relation _bt_sortrel;
static void
_bt_isortcmpinit(Relation index)
{
_bt_sortrel = index;
}
static int
What looks like some *major* improvements to btree indexing... Patches from: aoki@CS.Berkeley.EDU (Paul M. Aoki) i gave jolly my btree bulkload code a long, long time ago but never gave him a bunch of my bugfixes. here's a diff against the 6.0 baseline. for some reason, this code has slowed down somewhat relative to the insertion-build code on very small tables. don't know why -- it used to be within about 10%. anyway, here are some (highly unscientific!) timings on a dec 3000/300 for synthetic tables with 10k, 100k and 1000k tuples (basically, 1mb, 10mb and 100mb heaps). 'c' means clustered (pre-sorted) inputs and 'u' means unclustered (randomly ordered) inputs. the 10k table basically fits in the buffer pool, but the 100k and 1000k tables don't. as you can see, insertion build is fine if you've sorted your heaps on your index key or if your heap fits in core, but is absolutely horrible on unordered data (yes, that's 7.5 hours to index 100mb of data...) because of the zillions of random i/os. if it doesn't work for you for whatever reason, you can always turn it back off by flipping the FastBuild flag in nbtree.c. i don't have time to maintain it. good luck! baseline code: time psql -c 'create index c10 on k10 using btree (c int4_ops)' bttest real 8.6 time psql -c 'create index u10 on k10 using btree (b int4_ops)' bttest real 9.1 time psql -c 'create index c100 on k100 using btree (c int4_ops)' bttest real 59.2 time psql -c 'create index u100 on k100 using btree (b int4_ops)' bttest real 652.4 time psql -c 'create index c1000 on k1000 using btree (c int4_ops)' bttest real 636.1 time psql -c 'create index u1000 on k1000 using btree (b int4_ops)' bttest real 26772.9 bulkloading code: time psql -c 'create index c10 on k10 using btree (c int4_ops)' bttest real 11.3 time psql -c 'create index u10 on k10 using btree (b int4_ops)' bttest real 10.4 time psql -c 'create index c100 on k100 using btree (c int4_ops)' bttest real 59.5 time psql -c 'create index u100 on k100 using btree (b int4_ops)' bttest real 63.5 time psql -c 'create index c1000 on k1000 using btree (c int4_ops)' bttest real 636.9 time psql -c 'create index u1000 on k1000 using btree (b int4_ops)' bttest real 701.0
1997-02-12 06:04:52 +01:00
_bt_isortcmp(BTSortKey *k1, BTSortKey *k2)
{
What looks like some *major* improvements to btree indexing... Patches from: aoki@CS.Berkeley.EDU (Paul M. Aoki) i gave jolly my btree bulkload code a long, long time ago but never gave him a bunch of my bugfixes. here's a diff against the 6.0 baseline. for some reason, this code has slowed down somewhat relative to the insertion-build code on very small tables. don't know why -- it used to be within about 10%. anyway, here are some (highly unscientific!) timings on a dec 3000/300 for synthetic tables with 10k, 100k and 1000k tuples (basically, 1mb, 10mb and 100mb heaps). 'c' means clustered (pre-sorted) inputs and 'u' means unclustered (randomly ordered) inputs. the 10k table basically fits in the buffer pool, but the 100k and 1000k tables don't. as you can see, insertion build is fine if you've sorted your heaps on your index key or if your heap fits in core, but is absolutely horrible on unordered data (yes, that's 7.5 hours to index 100mb of data...) because of the zillions of random i/os. if it doesn't work for you for whatever reason, you can always turn it back off by flipping the FastBuild flag in nbtree.c. i don't have time to maintain it. good luck! baseline code: time psql -c 'create index c10 on k10 using btree (c int4_ops)' bttest real 8.6 time psql -c 'create index u10 on k10 using btree (b int4_ops)' bttest real 9.1 time psql -c 'create index c100 on k100 using btree (c int4_ops)' bttest real 59.2 time psql -c 'create index u100 on k100 using btree (b int4_ops)' bttest real 652.4 time psql -c 'create index c1000 on k1000 using btree (c int4_ops)' bttest real 636.1 time psql -c 'create index u1000 on k1000 using btree (b int4_ops)' bttest real 26772.9 bulkloading code: time psql -c 'create index c10 on k10 using btree (c int4_ops)' bttest real 11.3 time psql -c 'create index u10 on k10 using btree (b int4_ops)' bttest real 10.4 time psql -c 'create index c100 on k100 using btree (c int4_ops)' bttest real 59.5 time psql -c 'create index u100 on k100 using btree (b int4_ops)' bttest real 63.5 time psql -c 'create index c1000 on k1000 using btree (c int4_ops)' bttest real 636.9 time psql -c 'create index u1000 on k1000 using btree (b int4_ops)' bttest real 701.0
1997-02-12 06:04:52 +01:00
if (k1->btsk_item == (BTItem) NULL) {
if (k2->btsk_item == (BTItem) NULL) {
return(0); /* 1 = 2 */
}
return(1); /* 1 > 2 */
What looks like some *major* improvements to btree indexing... Patches from: aoki@CS.Berkeley.EDU (Paul M. Aoki) i gave jolly my btree bulkload code a long, long time ago but never gave him a bunch of my bugfixes. here's a diff against the 6.0 baseline. for some reason, this code has slowed down somewhat relative to the insertion-build code on very small tables. don't know why -- it used to be within about 10%. anyway, here are some (highly unscientific!) timings on a dec 3000/300 for synthetic tables with 10k, 100k and 1000k tuples (basically, 1mb, 10mb and 100mb heaps). 'c' means clustered (pre-sorted) inputs and 'u' means unclustered (randomly ordered) inputs. the 10k table basically fits in the buffer pool, but the 100k and 1000k tables don't. as you can see, insertion build is fine if you've sorted your heaps on your index key or if your heap fits in core, but is absolutely horrible on unordered data (yes, that's 7.5 hours to index 100mb of data...) because of the zillions of random i/os. if it doesn't work for you for whatever reason, you can always turn it back off by flipping the FastBuild flag in nbtree.c. i don't have time to maintain it. good luck! baseline code: time psql -c 'create index c10 on k10 using btree (c int4_ops)' bttest real 8.6 time psql -c 'create index u10 on k10 using btree (b int4_ops)' bttest real 9.1 time psql -c 'create index c100 on k100 using btree (c int4_ops)' bttest real 59.2 time psql -c 'create index u100 on k100 using btree (b int4_ops)' bttest real 652.4 time psql -c 'create index c1000 on k1000 using btree (c int4_ops)' bttest real 636.1 time psql -c 'create index u1000 on k1000 using btree (b int4_ops)' bttest real 26772.9 bulkloading code: time psql -c 'create index c10 on k10 using btree (c int4_ops)' bttest real 11.3 time psql -c 'create index u10 on k10 using btree (b int4_ops)' bttest real 10.4 time psql -c 'create index c100 on k100 using btree (c int4_ops)' bttest real 59.5 time psql -c 'create index u100 on k100 using btree (b int4_ops)' bttest real 63.5 time psql -c 'create index c1000 on k1000 using btree (c int4_ops)' bttest real 636.9 time psql -c 'create index u1000 on k1000 using btree (b int4_ops)' bttest real 701.0
1997-02-12 06:04:52 +01:00
} else if (k2->btsk_item == (BTItem) NULL) {
return(-1); /* 1 < 2 */
What looks like some *major* improvements to btree indexing... Patches from: aoki@CS.Berkeley.EDU (Paul M. Aoki) i gave jolly my btree bulkload code a long, long time ago but never gave him a bunch of my bugfixes. here's a diff against the 6.0 baseline. for some reason, this code has slowed down somewhat relative to the insertion-build code on very small tables. don't know why -- it used to be within about 10%. anyway, here are some (highly unscientific!) timings on a dec 3000/300 for synthetic tables with 10k, 100k and 1000k tuples (basically, 1mb, 10mb and 100mb heaps). 'c' means clustered (pre-sorted) inputs and 'u' means unclustered (randomly ordered) inputs. the 10k table basically fits in the buffer pool, but the 100k and 1000k tables don't. as you can see, insertion build is fine if you've sorted your heaps on your index key or if your heap fits in core, but is absolutely horrible on unordered data (yes, that's 7.5 hours to index 100mb of data...) because of the zillions of random i/os. if it doesn't work for you for whatever reason, you can always turn it back off by flipping the FastBuild flag in nbtree.c. i don't have time to maintain it. good luck! baseline code: time psql -c 'create index c10 on k10 using btree (c int4_ops)' bttest real 8.6 time psql -c 'create index u10 on k10 using btree (b int4_ops)' bttest real 9.1 time psql -c 'create index c100 on k100 using btree (c int4_ops)' bttest real 59.2 time psql -c 'create index u100 on k100 using btree (b int4_ops)' bttest real 652.4 time psql -c 'create index c1000 on k1000 using btree (c int4_ops)' bttest real 636.1 time psql -c 'create index u1000 on k1000 using btree (b int4_ops)' bttest real 26772.9 bulkloading code: time psql -c 'create index c10 on k10 using btree (c int4_ops)' bttest real 11.3 time psql -c 'create index u10 on k10 using btree (b int4_ops)' bttest real 10.4 time psql -c 'create index c100 on k100 using btree (c int4_ops)' bttest real 59.5 time psql -c 'create index u100 on k100 using btree (b int4_ops)' bttest real 63.5 time psql -c 'create index c1000 on k1000 using btree (c int4_ops)' bttest real 636.9 time psql -c 'create index u1000 on k1000 using btree (b int4_ops)' bttest real 701.0
1997-02-12 06:04:52 +01:00
} else if (_bt_invokestrat(_bt_sortrel, 1, BTGreaterStrategyNumber,
k1->btsk_datum, k2->btsk_datum)) {
return(1); /* 1 > 2 */
What looks like some *major* improvements to btree indexing... Patches from: aoki@CS.Berkeley.EDU (Paul M. Aoki) i gave jolly my btree bulkload code a long, long time ago but never gave him a bunch of my bugfixes. here's a diff against the 6.0 baseline. for some reason, this code has slowed down somewhat relative to the insertion-build code on very small tables. don't know why -- it used to be within about 10%. anyway, here are some (highly unscientific!) timings on a dec 3000/300 for synthetic tables with 10k, 100k and 1000k tuples (basically, 1mb, 10mb and 100mb heaps). 'c' means clustered (pre-sorted) inputs and 'u' means unclustered (randomly ordered) inputs. the 10k table basically fits in the buffer pool, but the 100k and 1000k tables don't. as you can see, insertion build is fine if you've sorted your heaps on your index key or if your heap fits in core, but is absolutely horrible on unordered data (yes, that's 7.5 hours to index 100mb of data...) because of the zillions of random i/os. if it doesn't work for you for whatever reason, you can always turn it back off by flipping the FastBuild flag in nbtree.c. i don't have time to maintain it. good luck! baseline code: time psql -c 'create index c10 on k10 using btree (c int4_ops)' bttest real 8.6 time psql -c 'create index u10 on k10 using btree (b int4_ops)' bttest real 9.1 time psql -c 'create index c100 on k100 using btree (c int4_ops)' bttest real 59.2 time psql -c 'create index u100 on k100 using btree (b int4_ops)' bttest real 652.4 time psql -c 'create index c1000 on k1000 using btree (c int4_ops)' bttest real 636.1 time psql -c 'create index u1000 on k1000 using btree (b int4_ops)' bttest real 26772.9 bulkloading code: time psql -c 'create index c10 on k10 using btree (c int4_ops)' bttest real 11.3 time psql -c 'create index u10 on k10 using btree (b int4_ops)' bttest real 10.4 time psql -c 'create index c100 on k100 using btree (c int4_ops)' bttest real 59.5 time psql -c 'create index u100 on k100 using btree (b int4_ops)' bttest real 63.5 time psql -c 'create index c1000 on k1000 using btree (c int4_ops)' bttest real 636.9 time psql -c 'create index u1000 on k1000 using btree (b int4_ops)' bttest real 701.0
1997-02-12 06:04:52 +01:00
} else if (_bt_invokestrat(_bt_sortrel, 1, BTGreaterStrategyNumber,
k2->btsk_datum, k1->btsk_datum)) {
return(-1); /* 1 < 2 */
}
return(0); /* 1 = 2 */
}
What looks like some *major* improvements to btree indexing... Patches from: aoki@CS.Berkeley.EDU (Paul M. Aoki) i gave jolly my btree bulkload code a long, long time ago but never gave him a bunch of my bugfixes. here's a diff against the 6.0 baseline. for some reason, this code has slowed down somewhat relative to the insertion-build code on very small tables. don't know why -- it used to be within about 10%. anyway, here are some (highly unscientific!) timings on a dec 3000/300 for synthetic tables with 10k, 100k and 1000k tuples (basically, 1mb, 10mb and 100mb heaps). 'c' means clustered (pre-sorted) inputs and 'u' means unclustered (randomly ordered) inputs. the 10k table basically fits in the buffer pool, but the 100k and 1000k tables don't. as you can see, insertion build is fine if you've sorted your heaps on your index key or if your heap fits in core, but is absolutely horrible on unordered data (yes, that's 7.5 hours to index 100mb of data...) because of the zillions of random i/os. if it doesn't work for you for whatever reason, you can always turn it back off by flipping the FastBuild flag in nbtree.c. i don't have time to maintain it. good luck! baseline code: time psql -c 'create index c10 on k10 using btree (c int4_ops)' bttest real 8.6 time psql -c 'create index u10 on k10 using btree (b int4_ops)' bttest real 9.1 time psql -c 'create index c100 on k100 using btree (c int4_ops)' bttest real 59.2 time psql -c 'create index u100 on k100 using btree (b int4_ops)' bttest real 652.4 time psql -c 'create index c1000 on k1000 using btree (c int4_ops)' bttest real 636.1 time psql -c 'create index u1000 on k1000 using btree (b int4_ops)' bttest real 26772.9 bulkloading code: time psql -c 'create index c10 on k10 using btree (c int4_ops)' bttest real 11.3 time psql -c 'create index u10 on k10 using btree (b int4_ops)' bttest real 10.4 time psql -c 'create index c100 on k100 using btree (c int4_ops)' bttest real 59.5 time psql -c 'create index u100 on k100 using btree (b int4_ops)' bttest real 63.5 time psql -c 'create index c1000 on k1000 using btree (c int4_ops)' bttest real 636.9 time psql -c 'create index u1000 on k1000 using btree (b int4_ops)' bttest real 701.0
1997-02-12 06:04:52 +01:00
static void
_bt_setsortkey(Relation index, BTItem bti, BTSortKey *sk)
{
sk->btsk_item = (BTItem) NULL;
sk->btsk_datum = (Datum) NULL;
if (bti != (BTItem) NULL) {
bool isnull;
Datum d = index_getattr(&(bti->bti_itup), 1, index->rd_att, &isnull);
if (!isnull) {
sk->btsk_item = bti;
sk->btsk_datum = d;
}
}
}
/*-------------------------------------------------------------------------
* priority queue methods
*
* these were more-or-less lifted from the heap section of the 1984
* edition of gonnet's book on algorithms and data structures. they
* are coded so that the smallest element in the heap is returned (we
* use them for merging sorted runs).
*
* XXX these probably ought to be generic library functions.
*-------------------------------------------------------------------------
*/
typedef struct {
int btpqe_tape; /* tape identifier */
What looks like some *major* improvements to btree indexing... Patches from: aoki@CS.Berkeley.EDU (Paul M. Aoki) i gave jolly my btree bulkload code a long, long time ago but never gave him a bunch of my bugfixes. here's a diff against the 6.0 baseline. for some reason, this code has slowed down somewhat relative to the insertion-build code on very small tables. don't know why -- it used to be within about 10%. anyway, here are some (highly unscientific!) timings on a dec 3000/300 for synthetic tables with 10k, 100k and 1000k tuples (basically, 1mb, 10mb and 100mb heaps). 'c' means clustered (pre-sorted) inputs and 'u' means unclustered (randomly ordered) inputs. the 10k table basically fits in the buffer pool, but the 100k and 1000k tables don't. as you can see, insertion build is fine if you've sorted your heaps on your index key or if your heap fits in core, but is absolutely horrible on unordered data (yes, that's 7.5 hours to index 100mb of data...) because of the zillions of random i/os. if it doesn't work for you for whatever reason, you can always turn it back off by flipping the FastBuild flag in nbtree.c. i don't have time to maintain it. good luck! baseline code: time psql -c 'create index c10 on k10 using btree (c int4_ops)' bttest real 8.6 time psql -c 'create index u10 on k10 using btree (b int4_ops)' bttest real 9.1 time psql -c 'create index c100 on k100 using btree (c int4_ops)' bttest real 59.2 time psql -c 'create index u100 on k100 using btree (b int4_ops)' bttest real 652.4 time psql -c 'create index c1000 on k1000 using btree (c int4_ops)' bttest real 636.1 time psql -c 'create index u1000 on k1000 using btree (b int4_ops)' bttest real 26772.9 bulkloading code: time psql -c 'create index c10 on k10 using btree (c int4_ops)' bttest real 11.3 time psql -c 'create index u10 on k10 using btree (b int4_ops)' bttest real 10.4 time psql -c 'create index c100 on k100 using btree (c int4_ops)' bttest real 59.5 time psql -c 'create index u100 on k100 using btree (b int4_ops)' bttest real 63.5 time psql -c 'create index c1000 on k1000 using btree (c int4_ops)' bttest real 636.9 time psql -c 'create index u1000 on k1000 using btree (b int4_ops)' bttest real 701.0
1997-02-12 06:04:52 +01:00
BTSortKey btpqe_item; /* pointer to BTItem in tape buffer */
} BTPriQueueElem;
#define MAXELEM MAXTAPES
typedef struct {
int btpq_nelem;
BTPriQueueElem btpq_queue[MAXELEM];
Relation btpq_rel;
} BTPriQueue;
/* be sure to call _bt_isortcmpinit first */
#define GREATER(a, b) \
(_bt_isortcmp(&((a)->btpqe_item), &((b)->btpqe_item)) > 0)
static void
_bt_pqsift(BTPriQueue *q, int parent)
{
int child;
BTPriQueueElem e;
for (child = parent * 2 + 1;
child < q->btpq_nelem;
child = parent * 2 + 1) {
if (child < q->btpq_nelem - 1) {
if (GREATER(&(q->btpq_queue[child]), &(q->btpq_queue[child+1]))) {
++child;
}
}
if (GREATER(&(q->btpq_queue[parent]), &(q->btpq_queue[child]))) {
e = q->btpq_queue[child]; /* struct = */
q->btpq_queue[child] = q->btpq_queue[parent]; /* struct = */
q->btpq_queue[parent] = e; /* struct = */
parent = child;
} else {
parent = child + 1;
}
}
}
static int
_bt_pqnext(BTPriQueue *q, BTPriQueueElem *e)
{
if (q->btpq_nelem < 1) { /* already empty */
return(-1);
}
*e = q->btpq_queue[0]; /* struct = */
if (--q->btpq_nelem < 1) { /* now empty, don't sift */
return(0);
}
q->btpq_queue[0] = q->btpq_queue[q->btpq_nelem]; /* struct = */
_bt_pqsift(q, 0);
return(0);
}
static void
_bt_pqadd(BTPriQueue *q, BTPriQueueElem *e)
{
int child, parent;
if (q->btpq_nelem >= MAXELEM) {
elog(WARN, "_bt_pqadd: queue overflow");
}
child = q->btpq_nelem++;
while (child > 0) {
parent = child / 2;
if (GREATER(e, &(q->btpq_queue[parent]))) {
break;
} else {
q->btpq_queue[child] = q->btpq_queue[parent]; /* struct = */
child = parent;
}
}
q->btpq_queue[child] = *e; /* struct = */
}
/*-------------------------------------------------------------------------
* tape methods
*-------------------------------------------------------------------------
*/
#define BTITEMSZ(btitem) \
((btitem) ? \
(IndexTupleDSize((btitem)->bti_itup) + \
(sizeof(BTItemData) - sizeof(IndexTupleData))) : \
0)
#define SPCLEFT(tape) \
(sizeof((tape)->bttb_data) - (tape)->bttb_top)
#define EMPTYTAPE(tape) \
((tape)->bttb_ntup <= 0)
#define BTTAPEMAGIC 0x19660226
/*
* this is what we use to shovel BTItems in and out of memory. it's
* bigger than a standard block because we are doing a lot of strictly
* sequential i/o. this is obviously something of a tradeoff since we
* are potentially reading a bunch of zeroes off of disk in many
* cases.
*
* BTItems are packed in and DOUBLEALIGN'd.
*
* the fd should not be going out to disk, strictly speaking, but it's
* the only thing like that so i'm not going to worry about wasting a
* few bytes.
*/
typedef struct {
int bttb_magic; /* magic number */
int bttb_fd; /* file descriptor */
int bttb_top; /* top of free space within bttb_data */
short bttb_ntup; /* number of tuples in this block */
short bttb_eor; /* End-Of-Run marker */
char bttb_data[TAPEBLCKSZ - 2 * sizeof(double)];
} BTTapeBlock;
/*
* reset the tape header for its next use without doing anything to
* the physical tape file. (setting bttb_top to 0 makes the block
* empty.)
*/
static void
_bt_tapereset(BTTapeBlock *tape)
{
tape->bttb_eor = 0;
tape->bttb_top = 0;
tape->bttb_ntup = 0;
}
/*
* rewind the physical tape file.
*/
static void
_bt_taperewind(BTTapeBlock *tape)
{
(void) FileSeek(tape->bttb_fd, 0, SEEK_SET);
}
/*
* destroy the contents of the physical tape file without destroying
* the tape data structure or removing the physical tape file.
*
* we use the VFD version of ftruncate(2) to do this rather than
* unlinking and recreating the file. you still have to wait while
* the OS frees up all of the file system blocks and stuff, but at
* least you don't have to delete and reinsert the directory entries.
*/
static void
_bt_tapeclear(BTTapeBlock *tape)
{
/* blow away the contents of the old file */
_bt_taperewind(tape);
#if 0
FileSync(tape->bttb_fd);
#endif
FileTruncate(tape->bttb_fd, 0);
/* reset the buffer */
_bt_tapereset(tape);
}
/*
* create a new BTTapeBlock, allocating memory for the data structure
* as well as opening a physical tape file.
*/
static BTTapeBlock *
_bt_tapecreate(char *fname)
{
BTTapeBlock *tape = (BTTapeBlock *) palloc(sizeof(BTTapeBlock));
if (tape == (BTTapeBlock *) NULL) {
elog(WARN, "_bt_tapecreate: out of memory");
}
tape->bttb_magic = BTTAPEMAGIC;
tape->bttb_fd = FileNameOpenFile(fname, O_RDWR|O_CREAT|O_TRUNC, 0600);
Assert(tape->bttb_fd >= 0);
/* initialize the buffer */
_bt_tapereset(tape);
return(tape);
}
/*
* destroy the BTTapeBlock structure and its physical tape file.
*/
static void
_bt_tapedestroy(BTTapeBlock *tape)
{
FileUnlink(tape->bttb_fd);
pfree((void *) tape);
}
/*
* flush the tape block to the file, marking End-Of-Run if requested.
*/
static void
_bt_tapewrite(BTTapeBlock *tape, int eor)
{
tape->bttb_eor = eor;
What looks like some *major* improvements to btree indexing... Patches from: aoki@CS.Berkeley.EDU (Paul M. Aoki) i gave jolly my btree bulkload code a long, long time ago but never gave him a bunch of my bugfixes. here's a diff against the 6.0 baseline. for some reason, this code has slowed down somewhat relative to the insertion-build code on very small tables. don't know why -- it used to be within about 10%. anyway, here are some (highly unscientific!) timings on a dec 3000/300 for synthetic tables with 10k, 100k and 1000k tuples (basically, 1mb, 10mb and 100mb heaps). 'c' means clustered (pre-sorted) inputs and 'u' means unclustered (randomly ordered) inputs. the 10k table basically fits in the buffer pool, but the 100k and 1000k tables don't. as you can see, insertion build is fine if you've sorted your heaps on your index key or if your heap fits in core, but is absolutely horrible on unordered data (yes, that's 7.5 hours to index 100mb of data...) because of the zillions of random i/os. if it doesn't work for you for whatever reason, you can always turn it back off by flipping the FastBuild flag in nbtree.c. i don't have time to maintain it. good luck! baseline code: time psql -c 'create index c10 on k10 using btree (c int4_ops)' bttest real 8.6 time psql -c 'create index u10 on k10 using btree (b int4_ops)' bttest real 9.1 time psql -c 'create index c100 on k100 using btree (c int4_ops)' bttest real 59.2 time psql -c 'create index u100 on k100 using btree (b int4_ops)' bttest real 652.4 time psql -c 'create index c1000 on k1000 using btree (c int4_ops)' bttest real 636.1 time psql -c 'create index u1000 on k1000 using btree (b int4_ops)' bttest real 26772.9 bulkloading code: time psql -c 'create index c10 on k10 using btree (c int4_ops)' bttest real 11.3 time psql -c 'create index u10 on k10 using btree (b int4_ops)' bttest real 10.4 time psql -c 'create index c100 on k100 using btree (c int4_ops)' bttest real 59.5 time psql -c 'create index u100 on k100 using btree (b int4_ops)' bttest real 63.5 time psql -c 'create index c1000 on k1000 using btree (c int4_ops)' bttest real 636.9 time psql -c 'create index u1000 on k1000 using btree (b int4_ops)' bttest real 701.0
1997-02-12 06:04:52 +01:00
FileWrite(tape->bttb_fd, (char *) tape, TAPEBLCKSZ);
NDirectFileWrite += TAPEBLCKSZ;
_bt_tapereset(tape);
}
/*
* read a tape block from the file, overwriting the current contents
* of the buffer.
*
* returns:
* - 0 if there are no more blocks in the tape or in this run (call
* _bt_tapereset to clear the End-Of-Run marker)
* - 1 if a valid block was read
*/
static int
_bt_taperead(BTTapeBlock *tape)
{
int fd;
int nread;
if (tape->bttb_eor) {
What looks like some *major* improvements to btree indexing... Patches from: aoki@CS.Berkeley.EDU (Paul M. Aoki) i gave jolly my btree bulkload code a long, long time ago but never gave him a bunch of my bugfixes. here's a diff against the 6.0 baseline. for some reason, this code has slowed down somewhat relative to the insertion-build code on very small tables. don't know why -- it used to be within about 10%. anyway, here are some (highly unscientific!) timings on a dec 3000/300 for synthetic tables with 10k, 100k and 1000k tuples (basically, 1mb, 10mb and 100mb heaps). 'c' means clustered (pre-sorted) inputs and 'u' means unclustered (randomly ordered) inputs. the 10k table basically fits in the buffer pool, but the 100k and 1000k tables don't. as you can see, insertion build is fine if you've sorted your heaps on your index key or if your heap fits in core, but is absolutely horrible on unordered data (yes, that's 7.5 hours to index 100mb of data...) because of the zillions of random i/os. if it doesn't work for you for whatever reason, you can always turn it back off by flipping the FastBuild flag in nbtree.c. i don't have time to maintain it. good luck! baseline code: time psql -c 'create index c10 on k10 using btree (c int4_ops)' bttest real 8.6 time psql -c 'create index u10 on k10 using btree (b int4_ops)' bttest real 9.1 time psql -c 'create index c100 on k100 using btree (c int4_ops)' bttest real 59.2 time psql -c 'create index u100 on k100 using btree (b int4_ops)' bttest real 652.4 time psql -c 'create index c1000 on k1000 using btree (c int4_ops)' bttest real 636.1 time psql -c 'create index u1000 on k1000 using btree (b int4_ops)' bttest real 26772.9 bulkloading code: time psql -c 'create index c10 on k10 using btree (c int4_ops)' bttest real 11.3 time psql -c 'create index u10 on k10 using btree (b int4_ops)' bttest real 10.4 time psql -c 'create index c100 on k100 using btree (c int4_ops)' bttest real 59.5 time psql -c 'create index u100 on k100 using btree (b int4_ops)' bttest real 63.5 time psql -c 'create index c1000 on k1000 using btree (c int4_ops)' bttest real 636.9 time psql -c 'create index u1000 on k1000 using btree (b int4_ops)' bttest real 701.0
1997-02-12 06:04:52 +01:00
return(0); /* we are already at End-Of-Run */
}
/*
* we're clobbering the old tape block, but we do need to save the
* VFD (the one in the block we're reading is bogus).
*/
fd = tape->bttb_fd;
What looks like some *major* improvements to btree indexing... Patches from: aoki@CS.Berkeley.EDU (Paul M. Aoki) i gave jolly my btree bulkload code a long, long time ago but never gave him a bunch of my bugfixes. here's a diff against the 6.0 baseline. for some reason, this code has slowed down somewhat relative to the insertion-build code on very small tables. don't know why -- it used to be within about 10%. anyway, here are some (highly unscientific!) timings on a dec 3000/300 for synthetic tables with 10k, 100k and 1000k tuples (basically, 1mb, 10mb and 100mb heaps). 'c' means clustered (pre-sorted) inputs and 'u' means unclustered (randomly ordered) inputs. the 10k table basically fits in the buffer pool, but the 100k and 1000k tables don't. as you can see, insertion build is fine if you've sorted your heaps on your index key or if your heap fits in core, but is absolutely horrible on unordered data (yes, that's 7.5 hours to index 100mb of data...) because of the zillions of random i/os. if it doesn't work for you for whatever reason, you can always turn it back off by flipping the FastBuild flag in nbtree.c. i don't have time to maintain it. good luck! baseline code: time psql -c 'create index c10 on k10 using btree (c int4_ops)' bttest real 8.6 time psql -c 'create index u10 on k10 using btree (b int4_ops)' bttest real 9.1 time psql -c 'create index c100 on k100 using btree (c int4_ops)' bttest real 59.2 time psql -c 'create index u100 on k100 using btree (b int4_ops)' bttest real 652.4 time psql -c 'create index c1000 on k1000 using btree (c int4_ops)' bttest real 636.1 time psql -c 'create index u1000 on k1000 using btree (b int4_ops)' bttest real 26772.9 bulkloading code: time psql -c 'create index c10 on k10 using btree (c int4_ops)' bttest real 11.3 time psql -c 'create index u10 on k10 using btree (b int4_ops)' bttest real 10.4 time psql -c 'create index c100 on k100 using btree (c int4_ops)' bttest real 59.5 time psql -c 'create index u100 on k100 using btree (b int4_ops)' bttest real 63.5 time psql -c 'create index c1000 on k1000 using btree (c int4_ops)' bttest real 636.9 time psql -c 'create index u1000 on k1000 using btree (b int4_ops)' bttest real 701.0
1997-02-12 06:04:52 +01:00
nread = FileRead(fd, (char *) tape, TAPEBLCKSZ);
tape->bttb_fd = fd;
if (nread != TAPEBLCKSZ) {
Assert(nread == 0); /* we are at EOF */
return(0);
}
Assert(tape->bttb_magic == BTTAPEMAGIC);
What looks like some *major* improvements to btree indexing... Patches from: aoki@CS.Berkeley.EDU (Paul M. Aoki) i gave jolly my btree bulkload code a long, long time ago but never gave him a bunch of my bugfixes. here's a diff against the 6.0 baseline. for some reason, this code has slowed down somewhat relative to the insertion-build code on very small tables. don't know why -- it used to be within about 10%. anyway, here are some (highly unscientific!) timings on a dec 3000/300 for synthetic tables with 10k, 100k and 1000k tuples (basically, 1mb, 10mb and 100mb heaps). 'c' means clustered (pre-sorted) inputs and 'u' means unclustered (randomly ordered) inputs. the 10k table basically fits in the buffer pool, but the 100k and 1000k tables don't. as you can see, insertion build is fine if you've sorted your heaps on your index key or if your heap fits in core, but is absolutely horrible on unordered data (yes, that's 7.5 hours to index 100mb of data...) because of the zillions of random i/os. if it doesn't work for you for whatever reason, you can always turn it back off by flipping the FastBuild flag in nbtree.c. i don't have time to maintain it. good luck! baseline code: time psql -c 'create index c10 on k10 using btree (c int4_ops)' bttest real 8.6 time psql -c 'create index u10 on k10 using btree (b int4_ops)' bttest real 9.1 time psql -c 'create index c100 on k100 using btree (c int4_ops)' bttest real 59.2 time psql -c 'create index u100 on k100 using btree (b int4_ops)' bttest real 652.4 time psql -c 'create index c1000 on k1000 using btree (c int4_ops)' bttest real 636.1 time psql -c 'create index u1000 on k1000 using btree (b int4_ops)' bttest real 26772.9 bulkloading code: time psql -c 'create index c10 on k10 using btree (c int4_ops)' bttest real 11.3 time psql -c 'create index u10 on k10 using btree (b int4_ops)' bttest real 10.4 time psql -c 'create index c100 on k100 using btree (c int4_ops)' bttest real 59.5 time psql -c 'create index u100 on k100 using btree (b int4_ops)' bttest real 63.5 time psql -c 'create index c1000 on k1000 using btree (c int4_ops)' bttest real 636.9 time psql -c 'create index u1000 on k1000 using btree (b int4_ops)' bttest real 701.0
1997-02-12 06:04:52 +01:00
NDirectFileRead += TAPEBLCKSZ;
return(1);
}
/*
* get the next BTItem from a tape block.
*
* returns:
* - NULL if we have run out of BTItems
* - a pointer to the BTItemData in the block otherwise
*
* side effects:
* - sets 'pos' to the current position within the block.
*/
static BTItem
_bt_tapenext(BTTapeBlock *tape, char **pos)
{
Size itemsz;
BTItem bti;
if (*pos >= tape->bttb_data + tape->bttb_top) {
return((BTItem) NULL);
}
bti = (BTItem) *pos;
itemsz = BTITEMSZ(bti);
*pos += DOUBLEALIGN(itemsz);
return(bti);
}
/*
* copy a BTItem into a tape block.
*
* assumes that we have already checked to see if the block has enough
* space for the item.
*
* side effects:
*
* - advances the 'top' pointer in the tape block header to point to
* the beginning of free space.
*/
static void
_bt_tapeadd(BTTapeBlock *tape, BTItem item, int itemsz)
{
(void) memcpy(tape->bttb_data + tape->bttb_top, item, itemsz);
++tape->bttb_ntup;
tape->bttb_top += DOUBLEALIGN(itemsz);
}
/*-------------------------------------------------------------------------
* spool methods
*-------------------------------------------------------------------------
*/
/*
* this structure holds the bookkeeping for a simple balanced multiway
* merge. (polyphase merging is hairier than i want to get into right
* now, and i don't see why i have to care how many "tapes" i use
* right now. though if psort was in a condition that i could hack it
* to do this, you bet i would.)
*/
typedef struct {
int bts_ntapes;
int bts_tape;
BTTapeBlock **bts_itape; /* input tape blocks */
BTTapeBlock **bts_otape; /* output tape blocks */
} BTSpool;
/*
* create and initialize a spool structure, including the underlying
* files.
*/
void *
_bt_spoolinit(Relation index, int ntapes)
{
BTSpool *btspool = (BTSpool *) palloc(sizeof(BTSpool));
int i;
char *fname = (char *) palloc(sizeof(TAPETEMP) + 1);
if (btspool == (BTSpool *) NULL || fname == (char *) NULL) {
elog(WARN, "_bt_spoolinit: out of memory");
}
(void) memset((char *) btspool, 0, sizeof(BTSpool));
btspool->bts_ntapes = ntapes;
btspool->bts_tape = 0;
btspool->bts_itape =
(BTTapeBlock **) palloc(sizeof(BTTapeBlock *) * ntapes);
btspool->bts_otape =
(BTTapeBlock **) palloc(sizeof(BTTapeBlock *) * ntapes);
if (btspool->bts_itape == (BTTapeBlock **) NULL ||
btspool->bts_otape == (BTTapeBlock **) NULL) {
elog(WARN, "_bt_spoolinit: out of memory");
}
for (i = 0; i < ntapes; ++i) {
btspool->bts_itape[i] =
_bt_tapecreate(mktemp(strcpy(fname, TAPETEMP)));
btspool->bts_otape[i] =
_bt_tapecreate(mktemp(strcpy(fname, TAPETEMP)));
}
pfree((void *) fname);
_bt_isortcmpinit(index);
return((void *) btspool);
}
/*
* clean up a spool structure and its substructures.
*/
void
_bt_spooldestroy(void *spool)
{
BTSpool *btspool = (BTSpool *) spool;
int i;
for (i = 0; i < btspool->bts_ntapes; ++i) {
_bt_tapedestroy(btspool->bts_otape[i]);
_bt_tapedestroy(btspool->bts_itape[i]);
}
pfree((void *) btspool);
}
/*
* flush out any dirty output tape blocks
*/
static void
_bt_spoolflush(BTSpool *btspool)
{
int i;
for (i = 0; i < btspool->bts_ntapes; ++i) {
if (!EMPTYTAPE(btspool->bts_otape[i])) {
_bt_tapewrite(btspool->bts_otape[i], 1);
}
}
}
/*
* swap input tapes and output tapes by swapping their file
* descriptors. additional preparation for the next merge pass
* includes rewinding the new input tapes and clearing out the new
* output tapes.
*/
static void
_bt_spoolswap(BTSpool *btspool)
{
File tmpfd;
BTTapeBlock *itape;
BTTapeBlock *otape;
int i;
for (i = 0; i < btspool->bts_ntapes; ++i) {
itape = btspool->bts_itape[i];
otape = btspool->bts_otape[i];
/*
* swap the input and output VFDs.
*/
tmpfd = itape->bttb_fd;
itape->bttb_fd = otape->bttb_fd;
otape->bttb_fd = tmpfd;
/*
* rewind the new input tape.
*/
_bt_taperewind(itape);
_bt_tapereset(itape);
/*
* clear the new output tape -- it's ok to throw away the old
* inputs.
*/
_bt_tapeclear(otape);
}
}
/*-------------------------------------------------------------------------
* sorting routines
*-------------------------------------------------------------------------
*/
/*
* spool 'btitem' into an initial run. as tape blocks are filled, the
* block BTItems are qsorted and written into some output tape (it
* doesn't matter which; we go round-robin for simplicity). the
* initial runs are therefore always just one block.
*/
void
_bt_spool(Relation index, BTItem btitem, void *spool)
{
BTSpool *btspool = (BTSpool *) spool;
BTTapeBlock *itape;
Size itemsz;
itape = btspool->bts_itape[btspool->bts_tape];
itemsz = BTITEMSZ(btitem);
itemsz = DOUBLEALIGN(itemsz);
/*
* if this buffer is too full for this BTItemData, or if we have
* run out of BTItems, we need to sort the buffer and write it
* out. in this case, the BTItemData will go into the next tape's
* buffer.
*/
if (btitem == (BTItem) NULL || SPCLEFT(itape) < itemsz) {
What looks like some *major* improvements to btree indexing... Patches from: aoki@CS.Berkeley.EDU (Paul M. Aoki) i gave jolly my btree bulkload code a long, long time ago but never gave him a bunch of my bugfixes. here's a diff against the 6.0 baseline. for some reason, this code has slowed down somewhat relative to the insertion-build code on very small tables. don't know why -- it used to be within about 10%. anyway, here are some (highly unscientific!) timings on a dec 3000/300 for synthetic tables with 10k, 100k and 1000k tuples (basically, 1mb, 10mb and 100mb heaps). 'c' means clustered (pre-sorted) inputs and 'u' means unclustered (randomly ordered) inputs. the 10k table basically fits in the buffer pool, but the 100k and 1000k tables don't. as you can see, insertion build is fine if you've sorted your heaps on your index key or if your heap fits in core, but is absolutely horrible on unordered data (yes, that's 7.5 hours to index 100mb of data...) because of the zillions of random i/os. if it doesn't work for you for whatever reason, you can always turn it back off by flipping the FastBuild flag in nbtree.c. i don't have time to maintain it. good luck! baseline code: time psql -c 'create index c10 on k10 using btree (c int4_ops)' bttest real 8.6 time psql -c 'create index u10 on k10 using btree (b int4_ops)' bttest real 9.1 time psql -c 'create index c100 on k100 using btree (c int4_ops)' bttest real 59.2 time psql -c 'create index u100 on k100 using btree (b int4_ops)' bttest real 652.4 time psql -c 'create index c1000 on k1000 using btree (c int4_ops)' bttest real 636.1 time psql -c 'create index u1000 on k1000 using btree (b int4_ops)' bttest real 26772.9 bulkloading code: time psql -c 'create index c10 on k10 using btree (c int4_ops)' bttest real 11.3 time psql -c 'create index u10 on k10 using btree (b int4_ops)' bttest real 10.4 time psql -c 'create index c100 on k100 using btree (c int4_ops)' bttest real 59.5 time psql -c 'create index u100 on k100 using btree (b int4_ops)' bttest real 63.5 time psql -c 'create index c1000 on k1000 using btree (c int4_ops)' bttest real 636.9 time psql -c 'create index u1000 on k1000 using btree (b int4_ops)' bttest real 701.0
1997-02-12 06:04:52 +01:00
BTSortKey *parray = (BTSortKey *) NULL;
BTTapeBlock *otape;
BTItem bti;
char *pos;
int btisz;
int i;
/*
* build an array of pointers to the BTItemDatas on the input
* block.
*/
What looks like some *major* improvements to btree indexing... Patches from: aoki@CS.Berkeley.EDU (Paul M. Aoki) i gave jolly my btree bulkload code a long, long time ago but never gave him a bunch of my bugfixes. here's a diff against the 6.0 baseline. for some reason, this code has slowed down somewhat relative to the insertion-build code on very small tables. don't know why -- it used to be within about 10%. anyway, here are some (highly unscientific!) timings on a dec 3000/300 for synthetic tables with 10k, 100k and 1000k tuples (basically, 1mb, 10mb and 100mb heaps). 'c' means clustered (pre-sorted) inputs and 'u' means unclustered (randomly ordered) inputs. the 10k table basically fits in the buffer pool, but the 100k and 1000k tables don't. as you can see, insertion build is fine if you've sorted your heaps on your index key or if your heap fits in core, but is absolutely horrible on unordered data (yes, that's 7.5 hours to index 100mb of data...) because of the zillions of random i/os. if it doesn't work for you for whatever reason, you can always turn it back off by flipping the FastBuild flag in nbtree.c. i don't have time to maintain it. good luck! baseline code: time psql -c 'create index c10 on k10 using btree (c int4_ops)' bttest real 8.6 time psql -c 'create index u10 on k10 using btree (b int4_ops)' bttest real 9.1 time psql -c 'create index c100 on k100 using btree (c int4_ops)' bttest real 59.2 time psql -c 'create index u100 on k100 using btree (b int4_ops)' bttest real 652.4 time psql -c 'create index c1000 on k1000 using btree (c int4_ops)' bttest real 636.1 time psql -c 'create index u1000 on k1000 using btree (b int4_ops)' bttest real 26772.9 bulkloading code: time psql -c 'create index c10 on k10 using btree (c int4_ops)' bttest real 11.3 time psql -c 'create index u10 on k10 using btree (b int4_ops)' bttest real 10.4 time psql -c 'create index c100 on k100 using btree (c int4_ops)' bttest real 59.5 time psql -c 'create index u100 on k100 using btree (b int4_ops)' bttest real 63.5 time psql -c 'create index c1000 on k1000 using btree (c int4_ops)' bttest real 636.9 time psql -c 'create index u1000 on k1000 using btree (b int4_ops)' bttest real 701.0
1997-02-12 06:04:52 +01:00
if (itape->bttb_ntup > 0) {
parray =
(BTSortKey *) palloc(itape->bttb_ntup * sizeof(BTSortKey));
if (parray == (BTSortKey *) NULL) {
elog(WARN, "_bt_spool: out of memory");
}
pos = itape->bttb_data;
for (i = 0; i < itape->bttb_ntup; ++i) {
_bt_setsortkey(index, _bt_tapenext(itape, &pos), &(parray[i]));
}
/*
* qsort the pointer array.
*/
_bt_isortcmpinit(index);
qsort((void *) parray, itape->bttb_ntup, sizeof(BTSortKey),
(int (*)(const void *,const void *))_bt_isortcmp);
}
/*
* write the spooled run into the output tape. we copy the
* BTItemDatas in the order dictated by the sorted array of
* BTItems, not the original order.
*
* (since everything was DOUBLEALIGN'd and is all on a single
What looks like some *major* improvements to btree indexing... Patches from: aoki@CS.Berkeley.EDU (Paul M. Aoki) i gave jolly my btree bulkload code a long, long time ago but never gave him a bunch of my bugfixes. here's a diff against the 6.0 baseline. for some reason, this code has slowed down somewhat relative to the insertion-build code on very small tables. don't know why -- it used to be within about 10%. anyway, here are some (highly unscientific!) timings on a dec 3000/300 for synthetic tables with 10k, 100k and 1000k tuples (basically, 1mb, 10mb and 100mb heaps). 'c' means clustered (pre-sorted) inputs and 'u' means unclustered (randomly ordered) inputs. the 10k table basically fits in the buffer pool, but the 100k and 1000k tables don't. as you can see, insertion build is fine if you've sorted your heaps on your index key or if your heap fits in core, but is absolutely horrible on unordered data (yes, that's 7.5 hours to index 100mb of data...) because of the zillions of random i/os. if it doesn't work for you for whatever reason, you can always turn it back off by flipping the FastBuild flag in nbtree.c. i don't have time to maintain it. good luck! baseline code: time psql -c 'create index c10 on k10 using btree (c int4_ops)' bttest real 8.6 time psql -c 'create index u10 on k10 using btree (b int4_ops)' bttest real 9.1 time psql -c 'create index c100 on k100 using btree (c int4_ops)' bttest real 59.2 time psql -c 'create index u100 on k100 using btree (b int4_ops)' bttest real 652.4 time psql -c 'create index c1000 on k1000 using btree (c int4_ops)' bttest real 636.1 time psql -c 'create index u1000 on k1000 using btree (b int4_ops)' bttest real 26772.9 bulkloading code: time psql -c 'create index c10 on k10 using btree (c int4_ops)' bttest real 11.3 time psql -c 'create index u10 on k10 using btree (b int4_ops)' bttest real 10.4 time psql -c 'create index c100 on k100 using btree (c int4_ops)' bttest real 59.5 time psql -c 'create index u100 on k100 using btree (b int4_ops)' bttest real 63.5 time psql -c 'create index c1000 on k1000 using btree (c int4_ops)' bttest real 636.9 time psql -c 'create index u1000 on k1000 using btree (b int4_ops)' bttest real 701.0
1997-02-12 06:04:52 +01:00
* tape block, everything had *better* still fit on one tape
* block..)
*/
otape = btspool->bts_otape[btspool->bts_tape];
for (i = 0; i < itape->bttb_ntup; ++i) {
What looks like some *major* improvements to btree indexing... Patches from: aoki@CS.Berkeley.EDU (Paul M. Aoki) i gave jolly my btree bulkload code a long, long time ago but never gave him a bunch of my bugfixes. here's a diff against the 6.0 baseline. for some reason, this code has slowed down somewhat relative to the insertion-build code on very small tables. don't know why -- it used to be within about 10%. anyway, here are some (highly unscientific!) timings on a dec 3000/300 for synthetic tables with 10k, 100k and 1000k tuples (basically, 1mb, 10mb and 100mb heaps). 'c' means clustered (pre-sorted) inputs and 'u' means unclustered (randomly ordered) inputs. the 10k table basically fits in the buffer pool, but the 100k and 1000k tables don't. as you can see, insertion build is fine if you've sorted your heaps on your index key or if your heap fits in core, but is absolutely horrible on unordered data (yes, that's 7.5 hours to index 100mb of data...) because of the zillions of random i/os. if it doesn't work for you for whatever reason, you can always turn it back off by flipping the FastBuild flag in nbtree.c. i don't have time to maintain it. good luck! baseline code: time psql -c 'create index c10 on k10 using btree (c int4_ops)' bttest real 8.6 time psql -c 'create index u10 on k10 using btree (b int4_ops)' bttest real 9.1 time psql -c 'create index c100 on k100 using btree (c int4_ops)' bttest real 59.2 time psql -c 'create index u100 on k100 using btree (b int4_ops)' bttest real 652.4 time psql -c 'create index c1000 on k1000 using btree (c int4_ops)' bttest real 636.1 time psql -c 'create index u1000 on k1000 using btree (b int4_ops)' bttest real 26772.9 bulkloading code: time psql -c 'create index c10 on k10 using btree (c int4_ops)' bttest real 11.3 time psql -c 'create index u10 on k10 using btree (b int4_ops)' bttest real 10.4 time psql -c 'create index c100 on k100 using btree (c int4_ops)' bttest real 59.5 time psql -c 'create index u100 on k100 using btree (b int4_ops)' bttest real 63.5 time psql -c 'create index c1000 on k1000 using btree (c int4_ops)' bttest real 636.9 time psql -c 'create index u1000 on k1000 using btree (b int4_ops)' bttest real 701.0
1997-02-12 06:04:52 +01:00
bti = parray[i].btsk_item;
btisz = BTITEMSZ(bti);
btisz = DOUBLEALIGN(btisz);
_bt_tapeadd(otape, bti, btisz);
What looks like some *major* improvements to btree indexing... Patches from: aoki@CS.Berkeley.EDU (Paul M. Aoki) i gave jolly my btree bulkload code a long, long time ago but never gave him a bunch of my bugfixes. here's a diff against the 6.0 baseline. for some reason, this code has slowed down somewhat relative to the insertion-build code on very small tables. don't know why -- it used to be within about 10%. anyway, here are some (highly unscientific!) timings on a dec 3000/300 for synthetic tables with 10k, 100k and 1000k tuples (basically, 1mb, 10mb and 100mb heaps). 'c' means clustered (pre-sorted) inputs and 'u' means unclustered (randomly ordered) inputs. the 10k table basically fits in the buffer pool, but the 100k and 1000k tables don't. as you can see, insertion build is fine if you've sorted your heaps on your index key or if your heap fits in core, but is absolutely horrible on unordered data (yes, that's 7.5 hours to index 100mb of data...) because of the zillions of random i/os. if it doesn't work for you for whatever reason, you can always turn it back off by flipping the FastBuild flag in nbtree.c. i don't have time to maintain it. good luck! baseline code: time psql -c 'create index c10 on k10 using btree (c int4_ops)' bttest real 8.6 time psql -c 'create index u10 on k10 using btree (b int4_ops)' bttest real 9.1 time psql -c 'create index c100 on k100 using btree (c int4_ops)' bttest real 59.2 time psql -c 'create index u100 on k100 using btree (b int4_ops)' bttest real 652.4 time psql -c 'create index c1000 on k1000 using btree (c int4_ops)' bttest real 636.1 time psql -c 'create index u1000 on k1000 using btree (b int4_ops)' bttest real 26772.9 bulkloading code: time psql -c 'create index c10 on k10 using btree (c int4_ops)' bttest real 11.3 time psql -c 'create index u10 on k10 using btree (b int4_ops)' bttest real 10.4 time psql -c 'create index c100 on k100 using btree (c int4_ops)' bttest real 59.5 time psql -c 'create index u100 on k100 using btree (b int4_ops)' bttest real 63.5 time psql -c 'create index c1000 on k1000 using btree (c int4_ops)' bttest real 636.9 time psql -c 'create index u1000 on k1000 using btree (b int4_ops)' bttest real 701.0
1997-02-12 06:04:52 +01:00
#if defined(FASTBUILD_DEBUG) && defined(FASTBUILD_SPOOL)
{
bool isnull;
What looks like some *major* improvements to btree indexing... Patches from: aoki@CS.Berkeley.EDU (Paul M. Aoki) i gave jolly my btree bulkload code a long, long time ago but never gave him a bunch of my bugfixes. here's a diff against the 6.0 baseline. for some reason, this code has slowed down somewhat relative to the insertion-build code on very small tables. don't know why -- it used to be within about 10%. anyway, here are some (highly unscientific!) timings on a dec 3000/300 for synthetic tables with 10k, 100k and 1000k tuples (basically, 1mb, 10mb and 100mb heaps). 'c' means clustered (pre-sorted) inputs and 'u' means unclustered (randomly ordered) inputs. the 10k table basically fits in the buffer pool, but the 100k and 1000k tables don't. as you can see, insertion build is fine if you've sorted your heaps on your index key or if your heap fits in core, but is absolutely horrible on unordered data (yes, that's 7.5 hours to index 100mb of data...) because of the zillions of random i/os. if it doesn't work for you for whatever reason, you can always turn it back off by flipping the FastBuild flag in nbtree.c. i don't have time to maintain it. good luck! baseline code: time psql -c 'create index c10 on k10 using btree (c int4_ops)' bttest real 8.6 time psql -c 'create index u10 on k10 using btree (b int4_ops)' bttest real 9.1 time psql -c 'create index c100 on k100 using btree (c int4_ops)' bttest real 59.2 time psql -c 'create index u100 on k100 using btree (b int4_ops)' bttest real 652.4 time psql -c 'create index c1000 on k1000 using btree (c int4_ops)' bttest real 636.1 time psql -c 'create index u1000 on k1000 using btree (b int4_ops)' bttest real 26772.9 bulkloading code: time psql -c 'create index c10 on k10 using btree (c int4_ops)' bttest real 11.3 time psql -c 'create index u10 on k10 using btree (b int4_ops)' bttest real 10.4 time psql -c 'create index c100 on k100 using btree (c int4_ops)' bttest real 59.5 time psql -c 'create index u100 on k100 using btree (b int4_ops)' bttest real 63.5 time psql -c 'create index c1000 on k1000 using btree (c int4_ops)' bttest real 636.9 time psql -c 'create index u1000 on k1000 using btree (b int4_ops)' bttest real 701.0
1997-02-12 06:04:52 +01:00
Datum d = index_getattr(&(bti->bti_itup), 1, index->rd_att,
&isnull);
printf("_bt_spool: inserted <%x> into output tape %d\n",
d, btspool->bts_tape);
}
What looks like some *major* improvements to btree indexing... Patches from: aoki@CS.Berkeley.EDU (Paul M. Aoki) i gave jolly my btree bulkload code a long, long time ago but never gave him a bunch of my bugfixes. here's a diff against the 6.0 baseline. for some reason, this code has slowed down somewhat relative to the insertion-build code on very small tables. don't know why -- it used to be within about 10%. anyway, here are some (highly unscientific!) timings on a dec 3000/300 for synthetic tables with 10k, 100k and 1000k tuples (basically, 1mb, 10mb and 100mb heaps). 'c' means clustered (pre-sorted) inputs and 'u' means unclustered (randomly ordered) inputs. the 10k table basically fits in the buffer pool, but the 100k and 1000k tables don't. as you can see, insertion build is fine if you've sorted your heaps on your index key or if your heap fits in core, but is absolutely horrible on unordered data (yes, that's 7.5 hours to index 100mb of data...) because of the zillions of random i/os. if it doesn't work for you for whatever reason, you can always turn it back off by flipping the FastBuild flag in nbtree.c. i don't have time to maintain it. good luck! baseline code: time psql -c 'create index c10 on k10 using btree (c int4_ops)' bttest real 8.6 time psql -c 'create index u10 on k10 using btree (b int4_ops)' bttest real 9.1 time psql -c 'create index c100 on k100 using btree (c int4_ops)' bttest real 59.2 time psql -c 'create index u100 on k100 using btree (b int4_ops)' bttest real 652.4 time psql -c 'create index c1000 on k1000 using btree (c int4_ops)' bttest real 636.1 time psql -c 'create index u1000 on k1000 using btree (b int4_ops)' bttest real 26772.9 bulkloading code: time psql -c 'create index c10 on k10 using btree (c int4_ops)' bttest real 11.3 time psql -c 'create index u10 on k10 using btree (b int4_ops)' bttest real 10.4 time psql -c 'create index c100 on k100 using btree (c int4_ops)' bttest real 59.5 time psql -c 'create index u100 on k100 using btree (b int4_ops)' bttest real 63.5 time psql -c 'create index c1000 on k1000 using btree (c int4_ops)' bttest real 636.9 time psql -c 'create index u1000 on k1000 using btree (b int4_ops)' bttest real 701.0
1997-02-12 06:04:52 +01:00
#endif /* FASTBUILD_DEBUG && FASTBUILD_SPOOL */
}
/*
* the initial runs are always single tape blocks. flush the
* output block, marking End-Of-Run.
*/
_bt_tapewrite(otape, 1);
/*
* reset the input buffer for the next run. we don't have to
* write it out or anything -- we only use it to hold the
* unsorted BTItemDatas, the output tape contains all the
* sorted stuff.
*
* changing bts_tape changes the output tape and input tape;
* we change itape for the code below.
*/
_bt_tapereset(itape);
btspool->bts_tape = (btspool->bts_tape + 1) % btspool->bts_ntapes;
itape = btspool->bts_itape[btspool->bts_tape];
/*
* destroy the pointer array.
*/
What looks like some *major* improvements to btree indexing... Patches from: aoki@CS.Berkeley.EDU (Paul M. Aoki) i gave jolly my btree bulkload code a long, long time ago but never gave him a bunch of my bugfixes. here's a diff against the 6.0 baseline. for some reason, this code has slowed down somewhat relative to the insertion-build code on very small tables. don't know why -- it used to be within about 10%. anyway, here are some (highly unscientific!) timings on a dec 3000/300 for synthetic tables with 10k, 100k and 1000k tuples (basically, 1mb, 10mb and 100mb heaps). 'c' means clustered (pre-sorted) inputs and 'u' means unclustered (randomly ordered) inputs. the 10k table basically fits in the buffer pool, but the 100k and 1000k tables don't. as you can see, insertion build is fine if you've sorted your heaps on your index key or if your heap fits in core, but is absolutely horrible on unordered data (yes, that's 7.5 hours to index 100mb of data...) because of the zillions of random i/os. if it doesn't work for you for whatever reason, you can always turn it back off by flipping the FastBuild flag in nbtree.c. i don't have time to maintain it. good luck! baseline code: time psql -c 'create index c10 on k10 using btree (c int4_ops)' bttest real 8.6 time psql -c 'create index u10 on k10 using btree (b int4_ops)' bttest real 9.1 time psql -c 'create index c100 on k100 using btree (c int4_ops)' bttest real 59.2 time psql -c 'create index u100 on k100 using btree (b int4_ops)' bttest real 652.4 time psql -c 'create index c1000 on k1000 using btree (c int4_ops)' bttest real 636.1 time psql -c 'create index u1000 on k1000 using btree (b int4_ops)' bttest real 26772.9 bulkloading code: time psql -c 'create index c10 on k10 using btree (c int4_ops)' bttest real 11.3 time psql -c 'create index u10 on k10 using btree (b int4_ops)' bttest real 10.4 time psql -c 'create index c100 on k100 using btree (c int4_ops)' bttest real 59.5 time psql -c 'create index u100 on k100 using btree (b int4_ops)' bttest real 63.5 time psql -c 'create index c1000 on k1000 using btree (c int4_ops)' bttest real 636.9 time psql -c 'create index u1000 on k1000 using btree (b int4_ops)' bttest real 701.0
1997-02-12 06:04:52 +01:00
if (parray != (BTSortKey *) NULL) {
pfree((void *) parray);
}
}
/* insert this item into the current buffer */
if (btitem != (BTItem) NULL) {
_bt_tapeadd(itape, btitem, itemsz);
}
}
/*
* allocate a new, clean btree page, not linked to any siblings.
*/
static void
_bt_blnewpage(Relation index, Buffer *buf, Page *page, int flags)
{
BTPageOpaque opaque;
*buf = _bt_getbuf(index, P_NEW, BT_WRITE);
What looks like some *major* improvements to btree indexing... Patches from: aoki@CS.Berkeley.EDU (Paul M. Aoki) i gave jolly my btree bulkload code a long, long time ago but never gave him a bunch of my bugfixes. here's a diff against the 6.0 baseline. for some reason, this code has slowed down somewhat relative to the insertion-build code on very small tables. don't know why -- it used to be within about 10%. anyway, here are some (highly unscientific!) timings on a dec 3000/300 for synthetic tables with 10k, 100k and 1000k tuples (basically, 1mb, 10mb and 100mb heaps). 'c' means clustered (pre-sorted) inputs and 'u' means unclustered (randomly ordered) inputs. the 10k table basically fits in the buffer pool, but the 100k and 1000k tables don't. as you can see, insertion build is fine if you've sorted your heaps on your index key or if your heap fits in core, but is absolutely horrible on unordered data (yes, that's 7.5 hours to index 100mb of data...) because of the zillions of random i/os. if it doesn't work for you for whatever reason, you can always turn it back off by flipping the FastBuild flag in nbtree.c. i don't have time to maintain it. good luck! baseline code: time psql -c 'create index c10 on k10 using btree (c int4_ops)' bttest real 8.6 time psql -c 'create index u10 on k10 using btree (b int4_ops)' bttest real 9.1 time psql -c 'create index c100 on k100 using btree (c int4_ops)' bttest real 59.2 time psql -c 'create index u100 on k100 using btree (b int4_ops)' bttest real 652.4 time psql -c 'create index c1000 on k1000 using btree (c int4_ops)' bttest real 636.1 time psql -c 'create index u1000 on k1000 using btree (b int4_ops)' bttest real 26772.9 bulkloading code: time psql -c 'create index c10 on k10 using btree (c int4_ops)' bttest real 11.3 time psql -c 'create index u10 on k10 using btree (b int4_ops)' bttest real 10.4 time psql -c 'create index c100 on k100 using btree (c int4_ops)' bttest real 59.5 time psql -c 'create index u100 on k100 using btree (b int4_ops)' bttest real 63.5 time psql -c 'create index c1000 on k1000 using btree (c int4_ops)' bttest real 636.9 time psql -c 'create index u1000 on k1000 using btree (b int4_ops)' bttest real 701.0
1997-02-12 06:04:52 +01:00
#if 0
printf("\tblk=%d\n", BufferGetBlockNumber(*buf));
#endif
*page = BufferGetPage(*buf);
_bt_pageinit(*page, BufferGetPageSize(*buf));
opaque = (BTPageOpaque) PageGetSpecialPointer(*page);
opaque->btpo_prev = opaque->btpo_next = P_NONE;
opaque->btpo_flags = flags;
}
/*
* slide an array of ItemIds back one slot (from P_FIRSTKEY to
What looks like some *major* improvements to btree indexing... Patches from: aoki@CS.Berkeley.EDU (Paul M. Aoki) i gave jolly my btree bulkload code a long, long time ago but never gave him a bunch of my bugfixes. here's a diff against the 6.0 baseline. for some reason, this code has slowed down somewhat relative to the insertion-build code on very small tables. don't know why -- it used to be within about 10%. anyway, here are some (highly unscientific!) timings on a dec 3000/300 for synthetic tables with 10k, 100k and 1000k tuples (basically, 1mb, 10mb and 100mb heaps). 'c' means clustered (pre-sorted) inputs and 'u' means unclustered (randomly ordered) inputs. the 10k table basically fits in the buffer pool, but the 100k and 1000k tables don't. as you can see, insertion build is fine if you've sorted your heaps on your index key or if your heap fits in core, but is absolutely horrible on unordered data (yes, that's 7.5 hours to index 100mb of data...) because of the zillions of random i/os. if it doesn't work for you for whatever reason, you can always turn it back off by flipping the FastBuild flag in nbtree.c. i don't have time to maintain it. good luck! baseline code: time psql -c 'create index c10 on k10 using btree (c int4_ops)' bttest real 8.6 time psql -c 'create index u10 on k10 using btree (b int4_ops)' bttest real 9.1 time psql -c 'create index c100 on k100 using btree (c int4_ops)' bttest real 59.2 time psql -c 'create index u100 on k100 using btree (b int4_ops)' bttest real 652.4 time psql -c 'create index c1000 on k1000 using btree (c int4_ops)' bttest real 636.1 time psql -c 'create index u1000 on k1000 using btree (b int4_ops)' bttest real 26772.9 bulkloading code: time psql -c 'create index c10 on k10 using btree (c int4_ops)' bttest real 11.3 time psql -c 'create index u10 on k10 using btree (b int4_ops)' bttest real 10.4 time psql -c 'create index c100 on k100 using btree (c int4_ops)' bttest real 59.5 time psql -c 'create index u100 on k100 using btree (b int4_ops)' bttest real 63.5 time psql -c 'create index c1000 on k1000 using btree (c int4_ops)' bttest real 636.9 time psql -c 'create index u1000 on k1000 using btree (b int4_ops)' bttest real 701.0
1997-02-12 06:04:52 +01:00
* P_HIKEY, overwriting P_HIKEY). we need to do this when we discover
* that we have built an ItemId array in what has turned out to be a
* P_RIGHTMOST page.
*/
static void
_bt_slideleft(Relation index, Buffer buf, Page page)
{
OffsetNumber off;
OffsetNumber maxoff;
ItemId previi;
ItemId thisii;
What looks like some *major* improvements to btree indexing... Patches from: aoki@CS.Berkeley.EDU (Paul M. Aoki) i gave jolly my btree bulkload code a long, long time ago but never gave him a bunch of my bugfixes. here's a diff against the 6.0 baseline. for some reason, this code has slowed down somewhat relative to the insertion-build code on very small tables. don't know why -- it used to be within about 10%. anyway, here are some (highly unscientific!) timings on a dec 3000/300 for synthetic tables with 10k, 100k and 1000k tuples (basically, 1mb, 10mb and 100mb heaps). 'c' means clustered (pre-sorted) inputs and 'u' means unclustered (randomly ordered) inputs. the 10k table basically fits in the buffer pool, but the 100k and 1000k tables don't. as you can see, insertion build is fine if you've sorted your heaps on your index key or if your heap fits in core, but is absolutely horrible on unordered data (yes, that's 7.5 hours to index 100mb of data...) because of the zillions of random i/os. if it doesn't work for you for whatever reason, you can always turn it back off by flipping the FastBuild flag in nbtree.c. i don't have time to maintain it. good luck! baseline code: time psql -c 'create index c10 on k10 using btree (c int4_ops)' bttest real 8.6 time psql -c 'create index u10 on k10 using btree (b int4_ops)' bttest real 9.1 time psql -c 'create index c100 on k100 using btree (c int4_ops)' bttest real 59.2 time psql -c 'create index u100 on k100 using btree (b int4_ops)' bttest real 652.4 time psql -c 'create index c1000 on k1000 using btree (c int4_ops)' bttest real 636.1 time psql -c 'create index u1000 on k1000 using btree (b int4_ops)' bttest real 26772.9 bulkloading code: time psql -c 'create index c10 on k10 using btree (c int4_ops)' bttest real 11.3 time psql -c 'create index u10 on k10 using btree (b int4_ops)' bttest real 10.4 time psql -c 'create index c100 on k100 using btree (c int4_ops)' bttest real 59.5 time psql -c 'create index u100 on k100 using btree (b int4_ops)' bttest real 63.5 time psql -c 'create index c1000 on k1000 using btree (c int4_ops)' bttest real 636.9 time psql -c 'create index u1000 on k1000 using btree (b int4_ops)' bttest real 701.0
1997-02-12 06:04:52 +01:00
if (!PageIsEmpty(page)) {
maxoff = PageGetMaxOffsetNumber(page);
previi = PageGetItemId(page, P_HIKEY);
for (off = P_FIRSTKEY; off <= maxoff; off = OffsetNumberNext(off)) {
thisii = PageGetItemId(page, off);
*previi = *thisii;
previi = thisii;
}
((PageHeader) page)->pd_lower -= sizeof(ItemIdData);
}
}
What looks like some *major* improvements to btree indexing... Patches from: aoki@CS.Berkeley.EDU (Paul M. Aoki) i gave jolly my btree bulkload code a long, long time ago but never gave him a bunch of my bugfixes. here's a diff against the 6.0 baseline. for some reason, this code has slowed down somewhat relative to the insertion-build code on very small tables. don't know why -- it used to be within about 10%. anyway, here are some (highly unscientific!) timings on a dec 3000/300 for synthetic tables with 10k, 100k and 1000k tuples (basically, 1mb, 10mb and 100mb heaps). 'c' means clustered (pre-sorted) inputs and 'u' means unclustered (randomly ordered) inputs. the 10k table basically fits in the buffer pool, but the 100k and 1000k tables don't. as you can see, insertion build is fine if you've sorted your heaps on your index key or if your heap fits in core, but is absolutely horrible on unordered data (yes, that's 7.5 hours to index 100mb of data...) because of the zillions of random i/os. if it doesn't work for you for whatever reason, you can always turn it back off by flipping the FastBuild flag in nbtree.c. i don't have time to maintain it. good luck! baseline code: time psql -c 'create index c10 on k10 using btree (c int4_ops)' bttest real 8.6 time psql -c 'create index u10 on k10 using btree (b int4_ops)' bttest real 9.1 time psql -c 'create index c100 on k100 using btree (c int4_ops)' bttest real 59.2 time psql -c 'create index u100 on k100 using btree (b int4_ops)' bttest real 652.4 time psql -c 'create index c1000 on k1000 using btree (c int4_ops)' bttest real 636.1 time psql -c 'create index u1000 on k1000 using btree (b int4_ops)' bttest real 26772.9 bulkloading code: time psql -c 'create index c10 on k10 using btree (c int4_ops)' bttest real 11.3 time psql -c 'create index u10 on k10 using btree (b int4_ops)' bttest real 10.4 time psql -c 'create index c100 on k100 using btree (c int4_ops)' bttest real 59.5 time psql -c 'create index u100 on k100 using btree (b int4_ops)' bttest real 63.5 time psql -c 'create index c1000 on k1000 using btree (c int4_ops)' bttest real 636.9 time psql -c 'create index u1000 on k1000 using btree (b int4_ops)' bttest real 701.0
1997-02-12 06:04:52 +01:00
/*
* allocate and initialize a new BTPageState. the returned structure
* is suitable for immediate use by _bt_buildadd.
*/
void *
_bt_pagestate(Relation index, int flags, int level, bool doupper)
{
BTPageState *state = (BTPageState *) palloc(sizeof(BTPageState));
(void) memset((char *) state, 0, sizeof(BTPageState));
_bt_blnewpage(index, &(state->btps_buf), &(state->btps_page), flags);
state->btps_firstoff = InvalidOffsetNumber;
state->btps_lastoff = P_HIKEY;
state->btps_lastbti = (BTItem) NULL;
state->btps_next = (BTPageState *) NULL;
state->btps_level = level;
state->btps_doupper = doupper;
return((void *) state);
}
/*
* return a copy of the minimum (P_HIKEY or P_FIRSTKEY) item on
* 'opage'. the copy is modified to point to 'opage' (as opposed to
* the page to which the item used to point, e.g., a heap page if
* 'opage' is a leaf page).
*/
BTItem
_bt_minitem(Page opage, BlockNumber oblkno, int atend)
{
OffsetNumber off;
BTItem obti;
BTItem nbti;
off = atend ? P_HIKEY : P_FIRSTKEY;
obti = (BTItem) PageGetItem(opage, PageGetItemId(opage, off));
nbti = _bt_formitem(&(obti->bti_itup));
ItemPointerSet(&(nbti->bti_itup.t_tid), oblkno, P_HIKEY);
return(nbti);
}
/*
* add an item to a disk page from a merge tape block.
*
* we must be careful to observe the following restrictions, placed
* upon us by the conventions in nbtsearch.c:
* - rightmost pages start data items at P_HIKEY instead of at
* P_FIRSTKEY.
* - duplicates cannot be split among pages unless the chain of
* duplicates starts at the first data item.
*
* a leaf page being built looks like:
*
* +----------------+---------------------------------+
* | PageHeaderData | linp0 linp1 linp2 ... |
* +-----------+----+---------------------------------+
* | ... linpN | ^ first |
* +-----------+--------------------------------------+
* | ^ last |
* | |
* | v last |
* +-------------+------------------------------------+
* | | itemN ... |
* +-------------+------------------+-----------------+
* | ... item3 item2 item1 | "special space" |
* +--------------------------------+-----------------+
* ^ first
*
* contrast this with the diagram in bufpage.h; note the mismatch
* between linps and items. this is because we reserve linp0 as a
* placeholder for the pointer to the "high key" item; when we have
* filled up the page, we will set linp0 to point to itemN and clear
* linpN.
*
* 'last' pointers indicate the last offset/item added to the page.
* 'first' pointers indicate the first offset/item that is part of a
* chain of duplicates extending from 'first' to 'last'.
*
* if all keys are unique, 'first' will always be the same as 'last'.
*/
What looks like some *major* improvements to btree indexing... Patches from: aoki@CS.Berkeley.EDU (Paul M. Aoki) i gave jolly my btree bulkload code a long, long time ago but never gave him a bunch of my bugfixes. here's a diff against the 6.0 baseline. for some reason, this code has slowed down somewhat relative to the insertion-build code on very small tables. don't know why -- it used to be within about 10%. anyway, here are some (highly unscientific!) timings on a dec 3000/300 for synthetic tables with 10k, 100k and 1000k tuples (basically, 1mb, 10mb and 100mb heaps). 'c' means clustered (pre-sorted) inputs and 'u' means unclustered (randomly ordered) inputs. the 10k table basically fits in the buffer pool, but the 100k and 1000k tables don't. as you can see, insertion build is fine if you've sorted your heaps on your index key or if your heap fits in core, but is absolutely horrible on unordered data (yes, that's 7.5 hours to index 100mb of data...) because of the zillions of random i/os. if it doesn't work for you for whatever reason, you can always turn it back off by flipping the FastBuild flag in nbtree.c. i don't have time to maintain it. good luck! baseline code: time psql -c 'create index c10 on k10 using btree (c int4_ops)' bttest real 8.6 time psql -c 'create index u10 on k10 using btree (b int4_ops)' bttest real 9.1 time psql -c 'create index c100 on k100 using btree (c int4_ops)' bttest real 59.2 time psql -c 'create index u100 on k100 using btree (b int4_ops)' bttest real 652.4 time psql -c 'create index c1000 on k1000 using btree (c int4_ops)' bttest real 636.1 time psql -c 'create index u1000 on k1000 using btree (b int4_ops)' bttest real 26772.9 bulkloading code: time psql -c 'create index c10 on k10 using btree (c int4_ops)' bttest real 11.3 time psql -c 'create index u10 on k10 using btree (b int4_ops)' bttest real 10.4 time psql -c 'create index c100 on k100 using btree (c int4_ops)' bttest real 59.5 time psql -c 'create index u100 on k100 using btree (b int4_ops)' bttest real 63.5 time psql -c 'create index c1000 on k1000 using btree (c int4_ops)' bttest real 636.9 time psql -c 'create index u1000 on k1000 using btree (b int4_ops)' bttest real 701.0
1997-02-12 06:04:52 +01:00
BTItem
_bt_buildadd(Relation index, void *pstate, BTItem bti, int flags)
{
What looks like some *major* improvements to btree indexing... Patches from: aoki@CS.Berkeley.EDU (Paul M. Aoki) i gave jolly my btree bulkload code a long, long time ago but never gave him a bunch of my bugfixes. here's a diff against the 6.0 baseline. for some reason, this code has slowed down somewhat relative to the insertion-build code on very small tables. don't know why -- it used to be within about 10%. anyway, here are some (highly unscientific!) timings on a dec 3000/300 for synthetic tables with 10k, 100k and 1000k tuples (basically, 1mb, 10mb and 100mb heaps). 'c' means clustered (pre-sorted) inputs and 'u' means unclustered (randomly ordered) inputs. the 10k table basically fits in the buffer pool, but the 100k and 1000k tables don't. as you can see, insertion build is fine if you've sorted your heaps on your index key or if your heap fits in core, but is absolutely horrible on unordered data (yes, that's 7.5 hours to index 100mb of data...) because of the zillions of random i/os. if it doesn't work for you for whatever reason, you can always turn it back off by flipping the FastBuild flag in nbtree.c. i don't have time to maintain it. good luck! baseline code: time psql -c 'create index c10 on k10 using btree (c int4_ops)' bttest real 8.6 time psql -c 'create index u10 on k10 using btree (b int4_ops)' bttest real 9.1 time psql -c 'create index c100 on k100 using btree (c int4_ops)' bttest real 59.2 time psql -c 'create index u100 on k100 using btree (b int4_ops)' bttest real 652.4 time psql -c 'create index c1000 on k1000 using btree (c int4_ops)' bttest real 636.1 time psql -c 'create index u1000 on k1000 using btree (b int4_ops)' bttest real 26772.9 bulkloading code: time psql -c 'create index c10 on k10 using btree (c int4_ops)' bttest real 11.3 time psql -c 'create index u10 on k10 using btree (b int4_ops)' bttest real 10.4 time psql -c 'create index c100 on k100 using btree (c int4_ops)' bttest real 59.5 time psql -c 'create index u100 on k100 using btree (b int4_ops)' bttest real 63.5 time psql -c 'create index c1000 on k1000 using btree (c int4_ops)' bttest real 636.9 time psql -c 'create index u1000 on k1000 using btree (b int4_ops)' bttest real 701.0
1997-02-12 06:04:52 +01:00
BTPageState *state = (BTPageState *) pstate;
Buffer nbuf;
Page npage;
BTItem last_bti;
OffsetNumber first_off;
OffsetNumber last_off;
OffsetNumber off;
Size pgspc;
Size btisz;
nbuf = state->btps_buf;
npage = state->btps_page;
first_off = state->btps_firstoff;
last_off = state->btps_lastoff;
last_bti = state->btps_lastbti;
pgspc = PageGetFreeSpace(npage);
btisz = BTITEMSZ(bti);
btisz = DOUBLEALIGN(btisz);
if (pgspc < btisz) {
Buffer obuf = nbuf;
Page opage = npage;
OffsetNumber o, n;
ItemId ii;
ItemId hii;
_bt_blnewpage(index, &nbuf, &npage, flags);
/*
* if 'last' is part of a chain of duplicates that does not
* start at the beginning of the old page, the entire chain is
* copied to the new page; we delete all of the duplicates
* from the old page except the first, which becomes the high
* key item of the old page.
*
* if the chain starts at the beginning of the page or there
* is no chain ('first' == 'last'), we need only copy 'last'
* to the new page. again, 'first' (== 'last') becomes the
* high key of the old page.
*
* note that in either case, we copy at least one item to the
* new page, so 'last_bti' will always be valid. 'bti' will
* never be the first data item on the new page.
*/
if (first_off == P_FIRSTKEY) {
Assert(last_off != P_FIRSTKEY);
first_off = last_off;
}
for (o = first_off, n = P_FIRSTKEY;
o <= last_off;
o = OffsetNumberNext(o), n = OffsetNumberNext(n)) {
ii = PageGetItemId(opage, o);
(void) PageAddItem(npage, PageGetItem(opage, ii),
ii->lp_len, n, LP_USED);
What looks like some *major* improvements to btree indexing... Patches from: aoki@CS.Berkeley.EDU (Paul M. Aoki) i gave jolly my btree bulkload code a long, long time ago but never gave him a bunch of my bugfixes. here's a diff against the 6.0 baseline. for some reason, this code has slowed down somewhat relative to the insertion-build code on very small tables. don't know why -- it used to be within about 10%. anyway, here are some (highly unscientific!) timings on a dec 3000/300 for synthetic tables with 10k, 100k and 1000k tuples (basically, 1mb, 10mb and 100mb heaps). 'c' means clustered (pre-sorted) inputs and 'u' means unclustered (randomly ordered) inputs. the 10k table basically fits in the buffer pool, but the 100k and 1000k tables don't. as you can see, insertion build is fine if you've sorted your heaps on your index key or if your heap fits in core, but is absolutely horrible on unordered data (yes, that's 7.5 hours to index 100mb of data...) because of the zillions of random i/os. if it doesn't work for you for whatever reason, you can always turn it back off by flipping the FastBuild flag in nbtree.c. i don't have time to maintain it. good luck! baseline code: time psql -c 'create index c10 on k10 using btree (c int4_ops)' bttest real 8.6 time psql -c 'create index u10 on k10 using btree (b int4_ops)' bttest real 9.1 time psql -c 'create index c100 on k100 using btree (c int4_ops)' bttest real 59.2 time psql -c 'create index u100 on k100 using btree (b int4_ops)' bttest real 652.4 time psql -c 'create index c1000 on k1000 using btree (c int4_ops)' bttest real 636.1 time psql -c 'create index u1000 on k1000 using btree (b int4_ops)' bttest real 26772.9 bulkloading code: time psql -c 'create index c10 on k10 using btree (c int4_ops)' bttest real 11.3 time psql -c 'create index u10 on k10 using btree (b int4_ops)' bttest real 10.4 time psql -c 'create index c100 on k100 using btree (c int4_ops)' bttest real 59.5 time psql -c 'create index u100 on k100 using btree (b int4_ops)' bttest real 63.5 time psql -c 'create index c1000 on k1000 using btree (c int4_ops)' bttest real 636.9 time psql -c 'create index u1000 on k1000 using btree (b int4_ops)' bttest real 701.0
1997-02-12 06:04:52 +01:00
#if 0
#if defined(FASTBUILD_DEBUG) && defined(FASTBUILD_MERGE)
{
bool isnull;
BTItem tmpbti =
(BTItem) PageGetItem(npage, PageGetItemId(npage, n));
Datum d = index_getattr(&(tmpbti->bti_itup), 1,
What looks like some *major* improvements to btree indexing... Patches from: aoki@CS.Berkeley.EDU (Paul M. Aoki) i gave jolly my btree bulkload code a long, long time ago but never gave him a bunch of my bugfixes. here's a diff against the 6.0 baseline. for some reason, this code has slowed down somewhat relative to the insertion-build code on very small tables. don't know why -- it used to be within about 10%. anyway, here are some (highly unscientific!) timings on a dec 3000/300 for synthetic tables with 10k, 100k and 1000k tuples (basically, 1mb, 10mb and 100mb heaps). 'c' means clustered (pre-sorted) inputs and 'u' means unclustered (randomly ordered) inputs. the 10k table basically fits in the buffer pool, but the 100k and 1000k tables don't. as you can see, insertion build is fine if you've sorted your heaps on your index key or if your heap fits in core, but is absolutely horrible on unordered data (yes, that's 7.5 hours to index 100mb of data...) because of the zillions of random i/os. if it doesn't work for you for whatever reason, you can always turn it back off by flipping the FastBuild flag in nbtree.c. i don't have time to maintain it. good luck! baseline code: time psql -c 'create index c10 on k10 using btree (c int4_ops)' bttest real 8.6 time psql -c 'create index u10 on k10 using btree (b int4_ops)' bttest real 9.1 time psql -c 'create index c100 on k100 using btree (c int4_ops)' bttest real 59.2 time psql -c 'create index u100 on k100 using btree (b int4_ops)' bttest real 652.4 time psql -c 'create index c1000 on k1000 using btree (c int4_ops)' bttest real 636.1 time psql -c 'create index u1000 on k1000 using btree (b int4_ops)' bttest real 26772.9 bulkloading code: time psql -c 'create index c10 on k10 using btree (c int4_ops)' bttest real 11.3 time psql -c 'create index u10 on k10 using btree (b int4_ops)' bttest real 10.4 time psql -c 'create index c100 on k100 using btree (c int4_ops)' bttest real 59.5 time psql -c 'create index u100 on k100 using btree (b int4_ops)' bttest real 63.5 time psql -c 'create index c1000 on k1000 using btree (c int4_ops)' bttest real 636.9 time psql -c 'create index u1000 on k1000 using btree (b int4_ops)' bttest real 701.0
1997-02-12 06:04:52 +01:00
index->rd_att, &isnull);
printf("_bt_buildadd: moved <%x> to offset %d at level %d\n",
d, n, state->btps_level);
}
What looks like some *major* improvements to btree indexing... Patches from: aoki@CS.Berkeley.EDU (Paul M. Aoki) i gave jolly my btree bulkload code a long, long time ago but never gave him a bunch of my bugfixes. here's a diff against the 6.0 baseline. for some reason, this code has slowed down somewhat relative to the insertion-build code on very small tables. don't know why -- it used to be within about 10%. anyway, here are some (highly unscientific!) timings on a dec 3000/300 for synthetic tables with 10k, 100k and 1000k tuples (basically, 1mb, 10mb and 100mb heaps). 'c' means clustered (pre-sorted) inputs and 'u' means unclustered (randomly ordered) inputs. the 10k table basically fits in the buffer pool, but the 100k and 1000k tables don't. as you can see, insertion build is fine if you've sorted your heaps on your index key or if your heap fits in core, but is absolutely horrible on unordered data (yes, that's 7.5 hours to index 100mb of data...) because of the zillions of random i/os. if it doesn't work for you for whatever reason, you can always turn it back off by flipping the FastBuild flag in nbtree.c. i don't have time to maintain it. good luck! baseline code: time psql -c 'create index c10 on k10 using btree (c int4_ops)' bttest real 8.6 time psql -c 'create index u10 on k10 using btree (b int4_ops)' bttest real 9.1 time psql -c 'create index c100 on k100 using btree (c int4_ops)' bttest real 59.2 time psql -c 'create index u100 on k100 using btree (b int4_ops)' bttest real 652.4 time psql -c 'create index c1000 on k1000 using btree (c int4_ops)' bttest real 636.1 time psql -c 'create index u1000 on k1000 using btree (b int4_ops)' bttest real 26772.9 bulkloading code: time psql -c 'create index c10 on k10 using btree (c int4_ops)' bttest real 11.3 time psql -c 'create index u10 on k10 using btree (b int4_ops)' bttest real 10.4 time psql -c 'create index c100 on k100 using btree (c int4_ops)' bttest real 59.5 time psql -c 'create index u100 on k100 using btree (b int4_ops)' bttest real 63.5 time psql -c 'create index c1000 on k1000 using btree (c int4_ops)' bttest real 636.9 time psql -c 'create index u1000 on k1000 using btree (b int4_ops)' bttest real 701.0
1997-02-12 06:04:52 +01:00
#endif /* FASTBUILD_DEBUG && FASTBUILD_MERGE */
#endif
}
What looks like some *major* improvements to btree indexing... Patches from: aoki@CS.Berkeley.EDU (Paul M. Aoki) i gave jolly my btree bulkload code a long, long time ago but never gave him a bunch of my bugfixes. here's a diff against the 6.0 baseline. for some reason, this code has slowed down somewhat relative to the insertion-build code on very small tables. don't know why -- it used to be within about 10%. anyway, here are some (highly unscientific!) timings on a dec 3000/300 for synthetic tables with 10k, 100k and 1000k tuples (basically, 1mb, 10mb and 100mb heaps). 'c' means clustered (pre-sorted) inputs and 'u' means unclustered (randomly ordered) inputs. the 10k table basically fits in the buffer pool, but the 100k and 1000k tables don't. as you can see, insertion build is fine if you've sorted your heaps on your index key or if your heap fits in core, but is absolutely horrible on unordered data (yes, that's 7.5 hours to index 100mb of data...) because of the zillions of random i/os. if it doesn't work for you for whatever reason, you can always turn it back off by flipping the FastBuild flag in nbtree.c. i don't have time to maintain it. good luck! baseline code: time psql -c 'create index c10 on k10 using btree (c int4_ops)' bttest real 8.6 time psql -c 'create index u10 on k10 using btree (b int4_ops)' bttest real 9.1 time psql -c 'create index c100 on k100 using btree (c int4_ops)' bttest real 59.2 time psql -c 'create index u100 on k100 using btree (b int4_ops)' bttest real 652.4 time psql -c 'create index c1000 on k1000 using btree (c int4_ops)' bttest real 636.1 time psql -c 'create index u1000 on k1000 using btree (b int4_ops)' bttest real 26772.9 bulkloading code: time psql -c 'create index c10 on k10 using btree (c int4_ops)' bttest real 11.3 time psql -c 'create index u10 on k10 using btree (b int4_ops)' bttest real 10.4 time psql -c 'create index c100 on k100 using btree (c int4_ops)' bttest real 59.5 time psql -c 'create index u100 on k100 using btree (b int4_ops)' bttest real 63.5 time psql -c 'create index c1000 on k1000 using btree (c int4_ops)' bttest real 636.9 time psql -c 'create index u1000 on k1000 using btree (b int4_ops)' bttest real 701.0
1997-02-12 06:04:52 +01:00
/*
* this loop is backward because PageIndexTupleDelete shuffles
* the tuples to fill holes in the page -- by starting at the
* end and working back, we won't create holes (and thereby
* avoid shuffling).
*/
for (o = last_off; o > first_off; o = OffsetNumberPrev(o)) {
PageIndexTupleDelete(opage, o);
}
hii = PageGetItemId(opage, P_HIKEY);
ii = PageGetItemId(opage, first_off);
*hii = *ii;
ii->lp_flags &= ~LP_USED;
((PageHeader) opage)->pd_lower -= sizeof(ItemIdData);
first_off = P_FIRSTKEY;
last_off = PageGetMaxOffsetNumber(npage);
last_bti = (BTItem) PageGetItem(npage, PageGetItemId(npage, last_off));
/*
* set the page (side link) pointers.
*/
{
BTPageOpaque oopaque = (BTPageOpaque) PageGetSpecialPointer(opage);
BTPageOpaque nopaque = (BTPageOpaque) PageGetSpecialPointer(npage);
oopaque->btpo_next = BufferGetBlockNumber(nbuf);
nopaque->btpo_prev = BufferGetBlockNumber(obuf);
nopaque->btpo_next = P_NONE;
}
What looks like some *major* improvements to btree indexing... Patches from: aoki@CS.Berkeley.EDU (Paul M. Aoki) i gave jolly my btree bulkload code a long, long time ago but never gave him a bunch of my bugfixes. here's a diff against the 6.0 baseline. for some reason, this code has slowed down somewhat relative to the insertion-build code on very small tables. don't know why -- it used to be within about 10%. anyway, here are some (highly unscientific!) timings on a dec 3000/300 for synthetic tables with 10k, 100k and 1000k tuples (basically, 1mb, 10mb and 100mb heaps). 'c' means clustered (pre-sorted) inputs and 'u' means unclustered (randomly ordered) inputs. the 10k table basically fits in the buffer pool, but the 100k and 1000k tables don't. as you can see, insertion build is fine if you've sorted your heaps on your index key or if your heap fits in core, but is absolutely horrible on unordered data (yes, that's 7.5 hours to index 100mb of data...) because of the zillions of random i/os. if it doesn't work for you for whatever reason, you can always turn it back off by flipping the FastBuild flag in nbtree.c. i don't have time to maintain it. good luck! baseline code: time psql -c 'create index c10 on k10 using btree (c int4_ops)' bttest real 8.6 time psql -c 'create index u10 on k10 using btree (b int4_ops)' bttest real 9.1 time psql -c 'create index c100 on k100 using btree (c int4_ops)' bttest real 59.2 time psql -c 'create index u100 on k100 using btree (b int4_ops)' bttest real 652.4 time psql -c 'create index c1000 on k1000 using btree (c int4_ops)' bttest real 636.1 time psql -c 'create index u1000 on k1000 using btree (b int4_ops)' bttest real 26772.9 bulkloading code: time psql -c 'create index c10 on k10 using btree (c int4_ops)' bttest real 11.3 time psql -c 'create index u10 on k10 using btree (b int4_ops)' bttest real 10.4 time psql -c 'create index c100 on k100 using btree (c int4_ops)' bttest real 59.5 time psql -c 'create index u100 on k100 using btree (b int4_ops)' bttest real 63.5 time psql -c 'create index c1000 on k1000 using btree (c int4_ops)' bttest real 636.9 time psql -c 'create index u1000 on k1000 using btree (b int4_ops)' bttest real 701.0
1997-02-12 06:04:52 +01:00
/*
* copy the old buffer's minimum key to its parent. if we
* don't have a parent, we have to create one; this adds a new
* btree level.
*/
if (state->btps_doupper) {
BTItem nbti;
if (state->btps_next == (BTPageState *) NULL) {
state->btps_next =
_bt_pagestate(index, 0, state->btps_level + 1, true);
}
nbti = _bt_minitem(opage, BufferGetBlockNumber(obuf), 0);
(void) _bt_buildadd(index, state->btps_next, nbti, 0);
pfree((void *) nbti);
}
/*
* write out the old stuff. we never want to see it again, so
* we can give up our lock (if we had one; BuildingBtree is
* set, so we aren't locking).
*/
_bt_wrtbuf(index, obuf);
}
/*
* if this item is different from the last item added, we start a
* new chain of duplicates.
*/
off = OffsetNumberNext(last_off);
(void) PageAddItem(npage, (Item) bti, btisz, off, LP_USED);
What looks like some *major* improvements to btree indexing... Patches from: aoki@CS.Berkeley.EDU (Paul M. Aoki) i gave jolly my btree bulkload code a long, long time ago but never gave him a bunch of my bugfixes. here's a diff against the 6.0 baseline. for some reason, this code has slowed down somewhat relative to the insertion-build code on very small tables. don't know why -- it used to be within about 10%. anyway, here are some (highly unscientific!) timings on a dec 3000/300 for synthetic tables with 10k, 100k and 1000k tuples (basically, 1mb, 10mb and 100mb heaps). 'c' means clustered (pre-sorted) inputs and 'u' means unclustered (randomly ordered) inputs. the 10k table basically fits in the buffer pool, but the 100k and 1000k tables don't. as you can see, insertion build is fine if you've sorted your heaps on your index key or if your heap fits in core, but is absolutely horrible on unordered data (yes, that's 7.5 hours to index 100mb of data...) because of the zillions of random i/os. if it doesn't work for you for whatever reason, you can always turn it back off by flipping the FastBuild flag in nbtree.c. i don't have time to maintain it. good luck! baseline code: time psql -c 'create index c10 on k10 using btree (c int4_ops)' bttest real 8.6 time psql -c 'create index u10 on k10 using btree (b int4_ops)' bttest real 9.1 time psql -c 'create index c100 on k100 using btree (c int4_ops)' bttest real 59.2 time psql -c 'create index u100 on k100 using btree (b int4_ops)' bttest real 652.4 time psql -c 'create index c1000 on k1000 using btree (c int4_ops)' bttest real 636.1 time psql -c 'create index u1000 on k1000 using btree (b int4_ops)' bttest real 26772.9 bulkloading code: time psql -c 'create index c10 on k10 using btree (c int4_ops)' bttest real 11.3 time psql -c 'create index u10 on k10 using btree (b int4_ops)' bttest real 10.4 time psql -c 'create index c100 on k100 using btree (c int4_ops)' bttest real 59.5 time psql -c 'create index u100 on k100 using btree (b int4_ops)' bttest real 63.5 time psql -c 'create index c1000 on k1000 using btree (c int4_ops)' bttest real 636.9 time psql -c 'create index u1000 on k1000 using btree (b int4_ops)' bttest real 701.0
1997-02-12 06:04:52 +01:00
#if 0
#if defined(FASTBUILD_DEBUG) && defined(FASTBUILD_MERGE)
{
bool isnull;
What looks like some *major* improvements to btree indexing... Patches from: aoki@CS.Berkeley.EDU (Paul M. Aoki) i gave jolly my btree bulkload code a long, long time ago but never gave him a bunch of my bugfixes. here's a diff against the 6.0 baseline. for some reason, this code has slowed down somewhat relative to the insertion-build code on very small tables. don't know why -- it used to be within about 10%. anyway, here are some (highly unscientific!) timings on a dec 3000/300 for synthetic tables with 10k, 100k and 1000k tuples (basically, 1mb, 10mb and 100mb heaps). 'c' means clustered (pre-sorted) inputs and 'u' means unclustered (randomly ordered) inputs. the 10k table basically fits in the buffer pool, but the 100k and 1000k tables don't. as you can see, insertion build is fine if you've sorted your heaps on your index key or if your heap fits in core, but is absolutely horrible on unordered data (yes, that's 7.5 hours to index 100mb of data...) because of the zillions of random i/os. if it doesn't work for you for whatever reason, you can always turn it back off by flipping the FastBuild flag in nbtree.c. i don't have time to maintain it. good luck! baseline code: time psql -c 'create index c10 on k10 using btree (c int4_ops)' bttest real 8.6 time psql -c 'create index u10 on k10 using btree (b int4_ops)' bttest real 9.1 time psql -c 'create index c100 on k100 using btree (c int4_ops)' bttest real 59.2 time psql -c 'create index u100 on k100 using btree (b int4_ops)' bttest real 652.4 time psql -c 'create index c1000 on k1000 using btree (c int4_ops)' bttest real 636.1 time psql -c 'create index u1000 on k1000 using btree (b int4_ops)' bttest real 26772.9 bulkloading code: time psql -c 'create index c10 on k10 using btree (c int4_ops)' bttest real 11.3 time psql -c 'create index u10 on k10 using btree (b int4_ops)' bttest real 10.4 time psql -c 'create index c100 on k100 using btree (c int4_ops)' bttest real 59.5 time psql -c 'create index u100 on k100 using btree (b int4_ops)' bttest real 63.5 time psql -c 'create index c1000 on k1000 using btree (c int4_ops)' bttest real 636.9 time psql -c 'create index u1000 on k1000 using btree (b int4_ops)' bttest real 701.0
1997-02-12 06:04:52 +01:00
Datum d = index_getattr(&(bti->bti_itup), 1, index->rd_att, &isnull);
printf("_bt_buildadd: inserted <%x> at offset %d at level %d\n",
d, off, state->btps_level);
}
What looks like some *major* improvements to btree indexing... Patches from: aoki@CS.Berkeley.EDU (Paul M. Aoki) i gave jolly my btree bulkload code a long, long time ago but never gave him a bunch of my bugfixes. here's a diff against the 6.0 baseline. for some reason, this code has slowed down somewhat relative to the insertion-build code on very small tables. don't know why -- it used to be within about 10%. anyway, here are some (highly unscientific!) timings on a dec 3000/300 for synthetic tables with 10k, 100k and 1000k tuples (basically, 1mb, 10mb and 100mb heaps). 'c' means clustered (pre-sorted) inputs and 'u' means unclustered (randomly ordered) inputs. the 10k table basically fits in the buffer pool, but the 100k and 1000k tables don't. as you can see, insertion build is fine if you've sorted your heaps on your index key or if your heap fits in core, but is absolutely horrible on unordered data (yes, that's 7.5 hours to index 100mb of data...) because of the zillions of random i/os. if it doesn't work for you for whatever reason, you can always turn it back off by flipping the FastBuild flag in nbtree.c. i don't have time to maintain it. good luck! baseline code: time psql -c 'create index c10 on k10 using btree (c int4_ops)' bttest real 8.6 time psql -c 'create index u10 on k10 using btree (b int4_ops)' bttest real 9.1 time psql -c 'create index c100 on k100 using btree (c int4_ops)' bttest real 59.2 time psql -c 'create index u100 on k100 using btree (b int4_ops)' bttest real 652.4 time psql -c 'create index c1000 on k1000 using btree (c int4_ops)' bttest real 636.1 time psql -c 'create index u1000 on k1000 using btree (b int4_ops)' bttest real 26772.9 bulkloading code: time psql -c 'create index c10 on k10 using btree (c int4_ops)' bttest real 11.3 time psql -c 'create index u10 on k10 using btree (b int4_ops)' bttest real 10.4 time psql -c 'create index c100 on k100 using btree (c int4_ops)' bttest real 59.5 time psql -c 'create index u100 on k100 using btree (b int4_ops)' bttest real 63.5 time psql -c 'create index c1000 on k1000 using btree (c int4_ops)' bttest real 636.9 time psql -c 'create index u1000 on k1000 using btree (b int4_ops)' bttest real 701.0
1997-02-12 06:04:52 +01:00
#endif /* FASTBUILD_DEBUG && FASTBUILD_MERGE */
#endif
if (last_bti == (BTItem) NULL) {
first_off = P_FIRSTKEY;
} else if (!_bt_itemcmp(index, 1, bti, last_bti, BTEqualStrategyNumber)) {
first_off = off;
}
last_off = off;
last_bti = (BTItem) PageGetItem(npage, PageGetItemId(npage, off));
state->btps_buf = nbuf;
state->btps_page = npage;
state->btps_lastbti = last_bti;
state->btps_lastoff = last_off;
state->btps_firstoff = first_off;
What looks like some *major* improvements to btree indexing... Patches from: aoki@CS.Berkeley.EDU (Paul M. Aoki) i gave jolly my btree bulkload code a long, long time ago but never gave him a bunch of my bugfixes. here's a diff against the 6.0 baseline. for some reason, this code has slowed down somewhat relative to the insertion-build code on very small tables. don't know why -- it used to be within about 10%. anyway, here are some (highly unscientific!) timings on a dec 3000/300 for synthetic tables with 10k, 100k and 1000k tuples (basically, 1mb, 10mb and 100mb heaps). 'c' means clustered (pre-sorted) inputs and 'u' means unclustered (randomly ordered) inputs. the 10k table basically fits in the buffer pool, but the 100k and 1000k tables don't. as you can see, insertion build is fine if you've sorted your heaps on your index key or if your heap fits in core, but is absolutely horrible on unordered data (yes, that's 7.5 hours to index 100mb of data...) because of the zillions of random i/os. if it doesn't work for you for whatever reason, you can always turn it back off by flipping the FastBuild flag in nbtree.c. i don't have time to maintain it. good luck! baseline code: time psql -c 'create index c10 on k10 using btree (c int4_ops)' bttest real 8.6 time psql -c 'create index u10 on k10 using btree (b int4_ops)' bttest real 9.1 time psql -c 'create index c100 on k100 using btree (c int4_ops)' bttest real 59.2 time psql -c 'create index u100 on k100 using btree (b int4_ops)' bttest real 652.4 time psql -c 'create index c1000 on k1000 using btree (c int4_ops)' bttest real 636.1 time psql -c 'create index u1000 on k1000 using btree (b int4_ops)' bttest real 26772.9 bulkloading code: time psql -c 'create index c10 on k10 using btree (c int4_ops)' bttest real 11.3 time psql -c 'create index u10 on k10 using btree (b int4_ops)' bttest real 10.4 time psql -c 'create index c100 on k100 using btree (c int4_ops)' bttest real 59.5 time psql -c 'create index u100 on k100 using btree (b int4_ops)' bttest real 63.5 time psql -c 'create index c1000 on k1000 using btree (c int4_ops)' bttest real 636.9 time psql -c 'create index u1000 on k1000 using btree (b int4_ops)' bttest real 701.0
1997-02-12 06:04:52 +01:00
return(last_bti);
}
void
_bt_uppershutdown(Relation index, BTPageState *state)
{
BTPageState *s;
BlockNumber blkno;
BTPageOpaque opaque;
BTItem bti;
for (s = state; s != (BTPageState *) NULL; s = s->btps_next) {
blkno = BufferGetBlockNumber(s->btps_buf);
opaque = (BTPageOpaque) PageGetSpecialPointer(s->btps_page);
/*
* if this is the root, attach it to the metapage. otherwise,
* stick the minimum key of the last page on this level (which
* has not been split, or else it wouldn't be the last page)
* into its parent. this may cause the last page of upper
* levels to split, but that's not a problem -- we haven't
* gotten to them yet.
*/
if (s->btps_doupper) {
if (s->btps_next == (BTPageState *) NULL) {
opaque->btpo_flags |= BTP_ROOT;
_bt_metaproot(index, blkno);
} else {
bti = _bt_minitem(s->btps_page, blkno, 0);
(void) _bt_buildadd(index, s->btps_next, bti, 0);
pfree((void *) bti);
}
}
/*
* this is the rightmost page, so the ItemId array needs to be
* slid back one slot.
*/
_bt_slideleft(index, s->btps_buf, s->btps_page);
_bt_wrtbuf(index, s->btps_buf);
}
}
/*
* take the input tapes stored by 'btspool' and perform successive
* merging passes until at most one run is left in each tape. at that
* point, merge the final tape runs into a set of btree leaves.
*
* XXX three nested loops? gross. cut me up into smaller routines.
*/
What looks like some *major* improvements to btree indexing... Patches from: aoki@CS.Berkeley.EDU (Paul M. Aoki) i gave jolly my btree bulkload code a long, long time ago but never gave him a bunch of my bugfixes. here's a diff against the 6.0 baseline. for some reason, this code has slowed down somewhat relative to the insertion-build code on very small tables. don't know why -- it used to be within about 10%. anyway, here are some (highly unscientific!) timings on a dec 3000/300 for synthetic tables with 10k, 100k and 1000k tuples (basically, 1mb, 10mb and 100mb heaps). 'c' means clustered (pre-sorted) inputs and 'u' means unclustered (randomly ordered) inputs. the 10k table basically fits in the buffer pool, but the 100k and 1000k tables don't. as you can see, insertion build is fine if you've sorted your heaps on your index key or if your heap fits in core, but is absolutely horrible on unordered data (yes, that's 7.5 hours to index 100mb of data...) because of the zillions of random i/os. if it doesn't work for you for whatever reason, you can always turn it back off by flipping the FastBuild flag in nbtree.c. i don't have time to maintain it. good luck! baseline code: time psql -c 'create index c10 on k10 using btree (c int4_ops)' bttest real 8.6 time psql -c 'create index u10 on k10 using btree (b int4_ops)' bttest real 9.1 time psql -c 'create index c100 on k100 using btree (c int4_ops)' bttest real 59.2 time psql -c 'create index u100 on k100 using btree (b int4_ops)' bttest real 652.4 time psql -c 'create index c1000 on k1000 using btree (c int4_ops)' bttest real 636.1 time psql -c 'create index u1000 on k1000 using btree (b int4_ops)' bttest real 26772.9 bulkloading code: time psql -c 'create index c10 on k10 using btree (c int4_ops)' bttest real 11.3 time psql -c 'create index u10 on k10 using btree (b int4_ops)' bttest real 10.4 time psql -c 'create index c100 on k100 using btree (c int4_ops)' bttest real 59.5 time psql -c 'create index u100 on k100 using btree (b int4_ops)' bttest real 63.5 time psql -c 'create index c1000 on k1000 using btree (c int4_ops)' bttest real 636.9 time psql -c 'create index u1000 on k1000 using btree (b int4_ops)' bttest real 701.0
1997-02-12 06:04:52 +01:00
static void
_bt_merge(Relation index, BTSpool *btspool)
{
What looks like some *major* improvements to btree indexing... Patches from: aoki@CS.Berkeley.EDU (Paul M. Aoki) i gave jolly my btree bulkload code a long, long time ago but never gave him a bunch of my bugfixes. here's a diff against the 6.0 baseline. for some reason, this code has slowed down somewhat relative to the insertion-build code on very small tables. don't know why -- it used to be within about 10%. anyway, here are some (highly unscientific!) timings on a dec 3000/300 for synthetic tables with 10k, 100k and 1000k tuples (basically, 1mb, 10mb and 100mb heaps). 'c' means clustered (pre-sorted) inputs and 'u' means unclustered (randomly ordered) inputs. the 10k table basically fits in the buffer pool, but the 100k and 1000k tables don't. as you can see, insertion build is fine if you've sorted your heaps on your index key or if your heap fits in core, but is absolutely horrible on unordered data (yes, that's 7.5 hours to index 100mb of data...) because of the zillions of random i/os. if it doesn't work for you for whatever reason, you can always turn it back off by flipping the FastBuild flag in nbtree.c. i don't have time to maintain it. good luck! baseline code: time psql -c 'create index c10 on k10 using btree (c int4_ops)' bttest real 8.6 time psql -c 'create index u10 on k10 using btree (b int4_ops)' bttest real 9.1 time psql -c 'create index c100 on k100 using btree (c int4_ops)' bttest real 59.2 time psql -c 'create index u100 on k100 using btree (b int4_ops)' bttest real 652.4 time psql -c 'create index c1000 on k1000 using btree (c int4_ops)' bttest real 636.1 time psql -c 'create index u1000 on k1000 using btree (b int4_ops)' bttest real 26772.9 bulkloading code: time psql -c 'create index c10 on k10 using btree (c int4_ops)' bttest real 11.3 time psql -c 'create index u10 on k10 using btree (b int4_ops)' bttest real 10.4 time psql -c 'create index c100 on k100 using btree (c int4_ops)' bttest real 59.5 time psql -c 'create index u100 on k100 using btree (b int4_ops)' bttest real 63.5 time psql -c 'create index c1000 on k1000 using btree (c int4_ops)' bttest real 636.9 time psql -c 'create index u1000 on k1000 using btree (b int4_ops)' bttest real 701.0
1997-02-12 06:04:52 +01:00
BTPageState *state;
BTPriQueue q;
BTPriQueueElem e;
BTItem bti;
BTTapeBlock *itape;
BTTapeBlock *otape;
char *tapepos[MAXTAPES];
int tapedone[MAXTAPES];
int t;
int goodtapes;
What looks like some *major* improvements to btree indexing... Patches from: aoki@CS.Berkeley.EDU (Paul M. Aoki) i gave jolly my btree bulkload code a long, long time ago but never gave him a bunch of my bugfixes. here's a diff against the 6.0 baseline. for some reason, this code has slowed down somewhat relative to the insertion-build code on very small tables. don't know why -- it used to be within about 10%. anyway, here are some (highly unscientific!) timings on a dec 3000/300 for synthetic tables with 10k, 100k and 1000k tuples (basically, 1mb, 10mb and 100mb heaps). 'c' means clustered (pre-sorted) inputs and 'u' means unclustered (randomly ordered) inputs. the 10k table basically fits in the buffer pool, but the 100k and 1000k tables don't. as you can see, insertion build is fine if you've sorted your heaps on your index key or if your heap fits in core, but is absolutely horrible on unordered data (yes, that's 7.5 hours to index 100mb of data...) because of the zillions of random i/os. if it doesn't work for you for whatever reason, you can always turn it back off by flipping the FastBuild flag in nbtree.c. i don't have time to maintain it. good luck! baseline code: time psql -c 'create index c10 on k10 using btree (c int4_ops)' bttest real 8.6 time psql -c 'create index u10 on k10 using btree (b int4_ops)' bttest real 9.1 time psql -c 'create index c100 on k100 using btree (c int4_ops)' bttest real 59.2 time psql -c 'create index u100 on k100 using btree (b int4_ops)' bttest real 652.4 time psql -c 'create index c1000 on k1000 using btree (c int4_ops)' bttest real 636.1 time psql -c 'create index u1000 on k1000 using btree (b int4_ops)' bttest real 26772.9 bulkloading code: time psql -c 'create index c10 on k10 using btree (c int4_ops)' bttest real 11.3 time psql -c 'create index u10 on k10 using btree (b int4_ops)' bttest real 10.4 time psql -c 'create index c100 on k100 using btree (c int4_ops)' bttest real 59.5 time psql -c 'create index u100 on k100 using btree (b int4_ops)' bttest real 63.5 time psql -c 'create index c1000 on k1000 using btree (c int4_ops)' bttest real 636.9 time psql -c 'create index u1000 on k1000 using btree (b int4_ops)' bttest real 701.0
1997-02-12 06:04:52 +01:00
int npass;
int nruns;
Size btisz;
bool doleaf = false;
/*
* initialize state needed for the merge into the btree leaf pages.
*/
What looks like some *major* improvements to btree indexing... Patches from: aoki@CS.Berkeley.EDU (Paul M. Aoki) i gave jolly my btree bulkload code a long, long time ago but never gave him a bunch of my bugfixes. here's a diff against the 6.0 baseline. for some reason, this code has slowed down somewhat relative to the insertion-build code on very small tables. don't know why -- it used to be within about 10%. anyway, here are some (highly unscientific!) timings on a dec 3000/300 for synthetic tables with 10k, 100k and 1000k tuples (basically, 1mb, 10mb and 100mb heaps). 'c' means clustered (pre-sorted) inputs and 'u' means unclustered (randomly ordered) inputs. the 10k table basically fits in the buffer pool, but the 100k and 1000k tables don't. as you can see, insertion build is fine if you've sorted your heaps on your index key or if your heap fits in core, but is absolutely horrible on unordered data (yes, that's 7.5 hours to index 100mb of data...) because of the zillions of random i/os. if it doesn't work for you for whatever reason, you can always turn it back off by flipping the FastBuild flag in nbtree.c. i don't have time to maintain it. good luck! baseline code: time psql -c 'create index c10 on k10 using btree (c int4_ops)' bttest real 8.6 time psql -c 'create index u10 on k10 using btree (b int4_ops)' bttest real 9.1 time psql -c 'create index c100 on k100 using btree (c int4_ops)' bttest real 59.2 time psql -c 'create index u100 on k100 using btree (b int4_ops)' bttest real 652.4 time psql -c 'create index c1000 on k1000 using btree (c int4_ops)' bttest real 636.1 time psql -c 'create index u1000 on k1000 using btree (b int4_ops)' bttest real 26772.9 bulkloading code: time psql -c 'create index c10 on k10 using btree (c int4_ops)' bttest real 11.3 time psql -c 'create index u10 on k10 using btree (b int4_ops)' bttest real 10.4 time psql -c 'create index c100 on k100 using btree (c int4_ops)' bttest real 59.5 time psql -c 'create index u100 on k100 using btree (b int4_ops)' bttest real 63.5 time psql -c 'create index c1000 on k1000 using btree (c int4_ops)' bttest real 636.9 time psql -c 'create index u1000 on k1000 using btree (b int4_ops)' bttest real 701.0
1997-02-12 06:04:52 +01:00
state = (BTPageState *) _bt_pagestate(index, BTP_LEAF, 0, true);
What looks like some *major* improvements to btree indexing... Patches from: aoki@CS.Berkeley.EDU (Paul M. Aoki) i gave jolly my btree bulkload code a long, long time ago but never gave him a bunch of my bugfixes. here's a diff against the 6.0 baseline. for some reason, this code has slowed down somewhat relative to the insertion-build code on very small tables. don't know why -- it used to be within about 10%. anyway, here are some (highly unscientific!) timings on a dec 3000/300 for synthetic tables with 10k, 100k and 1000k tuples (basically, 1mb, 10mb and 100mb heaps). 'c' means clustered (pre-sorted) inputs and 'u' means unclustered (randomly ordered) inputs. the 10k table basically fits in the buffer pool, but the 100k and 1000k tables don't. as you can see, insertion build is fine if you've sorted your heaps on your index key or if your heap fits in core, but is absolutely horrible on unordered data (yes, that's 7.5 hours to index 100mb of data...) because of the zillions of random i/os. if it doesn't work for you for whatever reason, you can always turn it back off by flipping the FastBuild flag in nbtree.c. i don't have time to maintain it. good luck! baseline code: time psql -c 'create index c10 on k10 using btree (c int4_ops)' bttest real 8.6 time psql -c 'create index u10 on k10 using btree (b int4_ops)' bttest real 9.1 time psql -c 'create index c100 on k100 using btree (c int4_ops)' bttest real 59.2 time psql -c 'create index u100 on k100 using btree (b int4_ops)' bttest real 652.4 time psql -c 'create index c1000 on k1000 using btree (c int4_ops)' bttest real 636.1 time psql -c 'create index u1000 on k1000 using btree (b int4_ops)' bttest real 26772.9 bulkloading code: time psql -c 'create index c10 on k10 using btree (c int4_ops)' bttest real 11.3 time psql -c 'create index u10 on k10 using btree (b int4_ops)' bttest real 10.4 time psql -c 'create index c100 on k100 using btree (c int4_ops)' bttest real 59.5 time psql -c 'create index u100 on k100 using btree (b int4_ops)' bttest real 63.5 time psql -c 'create index c1000 on k1000 using btree (c int4_ops)' bttest real 636.9 time psql -c 'create index u1000 on k1000 using btree (b int4_ops)' bttest real 701.0
1997-02-12 06:04:52 +01:00
npass = 0;
do { /* pass */
/*
* each pass starts by flushing the previous outputs and
What looks like some *major* improvements to btree indexing... Patches from: aoki@CS.Berkeley.EDU (Paul M. Aoki) i gave jolly my btree bulkload code a long, long time ago but never gave him a bunch of my bugfixes. here's a diff against the 6.0 baseline. for some reason, this code has slowed down somewhat relative to the insertion-build code on very small tables. don't know why -- it used to be within about 10%. anyway, here are some (highly unscientific!) timings on a dec 3000/300 for synthetic tables with 10k, 100k and 1000k tuples (basically, 1mb, 10mb and 100mb heaps). 'c' means clustered (pre-sorted) inputs and 'u' means unclustered (randomly ordered) inputs. the 10k table basically fits in the buffer pool, but the 100k and 1000k tables don't. as you can see, insertion build is fine if you've sorted your heaps on your index key or if your heap fits in core, but is absolutely horrible on unordered data (yes, that's 7.5 hours to index 100mb of data...) because of the zillions of random i/os. if it doesn't work for you for whatever reason, you can always turn it back off by flipping the FastBuild flag in nbtree.c. i don't have time to maintain it. good luck! baseline code: time psql -c 'create index c10 on k10 using btree (c int4_ops)' bttest real 8.6 time psql -c 'create index u10 on k10 using btree (b int4_ops)' bttest real 9.1 time psql -c 'create index c100 on k100 using btree (c int4_ops)' bttest real 59.2 time psql -c 'create index u100 on k100 using btree (b int4_ops)' bttest real 652.4 time psql -c 'create index c1000 on k1000 using btree (c int4_ops)' bttest real 636.1 time psql -c 'create index u1000 on k1000 using btree (b int4_ops)' bttest real 26772.9 bulkloading code: time psql -c 'create index c10 on k10 using btree (c int4_ops)' bttest real 11.3 time psql -c 'create index u10 on k10 using btree (b int4_ops)' bttest real 10.4 time psql -c 'create index c100 on k100 using btree (c int4_ops)' bttest real 59.5 time psql -c 'create index u100 on k100 using btree (b int4_ops)' bttest real 63.5 time psql -c 'create index c1000 on k1000 using btree (c int4_ops)' bttest real 636.9 time psql -c 'create index u1000 on k1000 using btree (b int4_ops)' bttest real 701.0
1997-02-12 06:04:52 +01:00
* swapping inputs and outputs. flushing sets End-of-Run for
* any dirty output tapes. swapping clears the new output
* tapes and rewinds the new input tapes.
*/
btspool->bts_tape = btspool->bts_ntapes - 1;
_bt_spoolflush(btspool);
_bt_spoolswap(btspool);
What looks like some *major* improvements to btree indexing... Patches from: aoki@CS.Berkeley.EDU (Paul M. Aoki) i gave jolly my btree bulkload code a long, long time ago but never gave him a bunch of my bugfixes. here's a diff against the 6.0 baseline. for some reason, this code has slowed down somewhat relative to the insertion-build code on very small tables. don't know why -- it used to be within about 10%. anyway, here are some (highly unscientific!) timings on a dec 3000/300 for synthetic tables with 10k, 100k and 1000k tuples (basically, 1mb, 10mb and 100mb heaps). 'c' means clustered (pre-sorted) inputs and 'u' means unclustered (randomly ordered) inputs. the 10k table basically fits in the buffer pool, but the 100k and 1000k tables don't. as you can see, insertion build is fine if you've sorted your heaps on your index key or if your heap fits in core, but is absolutely horrible on unordered data (yes, that's 7.5 hours to index 100mb of data...) because of the zillions of random i/os. if it doesn't work for you for whatever reason, you can always turn it back off by flipping the FastBuild flag in nbtree.c. i don't have time to maintain it. good luck! baseline code: time psql -c 'create index c10 on k10 using btree (c int4_ops)' bttest real 8.6 time psql -c 'create index u10 on k10 using btree (b int4_ops)' bttest real 9.1 time psql -c 'create index c100 on k100 using btree (c int4_ops)' bttest real 59.2 time psql -c 'create index u100 on k100 using btree (b int4_ops)' bttest real 652.4 time psql -c 'create index c1000 on k1000 using btree (c int4_ops)' bttest real 636.1 time psql -c 'create index u1000 on k1000 using btree (b int4_ops)' bttest real 26772.9 bulkloading code: time psql -c 'create index c10 on k10 using btree (c int4_ops)' bttest real 11.3 time psql -c 'create index u10 on k10 using btree (b int4_ops)' bttest real 10.4 time psql -c 'create index c100 on k100 using btree (c int4_ops)' bttest real 59.5 time psql -c 'create index u100 on k100 using btree (b int4_ops)' bttest real 63.5 time psql -c 'create index c1000 on k1000 using btree (c int4_ops)' bttest real 636.9 time psql -c 'create index u1000 on k1000 using btree (b int4_ops)' bttest real 701.0
1997-02-12 06:04:52 +01:00
++npass;
nruns = 0;
for (;;) { /* run */
/*
* each run starts by selecting a new output tape. the
* merged results of a given run are always sent to this
* one tape.
*/
btspool->bts_tape = (btspool->bts_tape + 1) % btspool->bts_ntapes;
otape = btspool->bts_otape[btspool->bts_tape];
/*
* initialize the priority queue by loading it with the
* first element of the given run in each tape. since we
* are starting a new run, we reset the tape (clearing the
* End-Of-Run marker) before reading it. this means that
* _bt_taperead will return 0 only if the tape is actually
* at EOF.
*/
(void) memset((char *) &q, 0, sizeof(BTPriQueue));
goodtapes = 0;
for (t = 0; t < btspool->bts_ntapes; ++t) {
itape = btspool->bts_itape[t];
tapepos[t] = itape->bttb_data;
What looks like some *major* improvements to btree indexing... Patches from: aoki@CS.Berkeley.EDU (Paul M. Aoki) i gave jolly my btree bulkload code a long, long time ago but never gave him a bunch of my bugfixes. here's a diff against the 6.0 baseline. for some reason, this code has slowed down somewhat relative to the insertion-build code on very small tables. don't know why -- it used to be within about 10%. anyway, here are some (highly unscientific!) timings on a dec 3000/300 for synthetic tables with 10k, 100k and 1000k tuples (basically, 1mb, 10mb and 100mb heaps). 'c' means clustered (pre-sorted) inputs and 'u' means unclustered (randomly ordered) inputs. the 10k table basically fits in the buffer pool, but the 100k and 1000k tables don't. as you can see, insertion build is fine if you've sorted your heaps on your index key or if your heap fits in core, but is absolutely horrible on unordered data (yes, that's 7.5 hours to index 100mb of data...) because of the zillions of random i/os. if it doesn't work for you for whatever reason, you can always turn it back off by flipping the FastBuild flag in nbtree.c. i don't have time to maintain it. good luck! baseline code: time psql -c 'create index c10 on k10 using btree (c int4_ops)' bttest real 8.6 time psql -c 'create index u10 on k10 using btree (b int4_ops)' bttest real 9.1 time psql -c 'create index c100 on k100 using btree (c int4_ops)' bttest real 59.2 time psql -c 'create index u100 on k100 using btree (b int4_ops)' bttest real 652.4 time psql -c 'create index c1000 on k1000 using btree (c int4_ops)' bttest real 636.1 time psql -c 'create index u1000 on k1000 using btree (b int4_ops)' bttest real 26772.9 bulkloading code: time psql -c 'create index c10 on k10 using btree (c int4_ops)' bttest real 11.3 time psql -c 'create index u10 on k10 using btree (b int4_ops)' bttest real 10.4 time psql -c 'create index c100 on k100 using btree (c int4_ops)' bttest real 59.5 time psql -c 'create index u100 on k100 using btree (b int4_ops)' bttest real 63.5 time psql -c 'create index c1000 on k1000 using btree (c int4_ops)' bttest real 636.9 time psql -c 'create index u1000 on k1000 using btree (b int4_ops)' bttest real 701.0
1997-02-12 06:04:52 +01:00
tapedone[t] = 0;
_bt_tapereset(itape);
What looks like some *major* improvements to btree indexing... Patches from: aoki@CS.Berkeley.EDU (Paul M. Aoki) i gave jolly my btree bulkload code a long, long time ago but never gave him a bunch of my bugfixes. here's a diff against the 6.0 baseline. for some reason, this code has slowed down somewhat relative to the insertion-build code on very small tables. don't know why -- it used to be within about 10%. anyway, here are some (highly unscientific!) timings on a dec 3000/300 for synthetic tables with 10k, 100k and 1000k tuples (basically, 1mb, 10mb and 100mb heaps). 'c' means clustered (pre-sorted) inputs and 'u' means unclustered (randomly ordered) inputs. the 10k table basically fits in the buffer pool, but the 100k and 1000k tables don't. as you can see, insertion build is fine if you've sorted your heaps on your index key or if your heap fits in core, but is absolutely horrible on unordered data (yes, that's 7.5 hours to index 100mb of data...) because of the zillions of random i/os. if it doesn't work for you for whatever reason, you can always turn it back off by flipping the FastBuild flag in nbtree.c. i don't have time to maintain it. good luck! baseline code: time psql -c 'create index c10 on k10 using btree (c int4_ops)' bttest real 8.6 time psql -c 'create index u10 on k10 using btree (b int4_ops)' bttest real 9.1 time psql -c 'create index c100 on k100 using btree (c int4_ops)' bttest real 59.2 time psql -c 'create index u100 on k100 using btree (b int4_ops)' bttest real 652.4 time psql -c 'create index c1000 on k1000 using btree (c int4_ops)' bttest real 636.1 time psql -c 'create index u1000 on k1000 using btree (b int4_ops)' bttest real 26772.9 bulkloading code: time psql -c 'create index c10 on k10 using btree (c int4_ops)' bttest real 11.3 time psql -c 'create index u10 on k10 using btree (b int4_ops)' bttest real 10.4 time psql -c 'create index c100 on k100 using btree (c int4_ops)' bttest real 59.5 time psql -c 'create index u100 on k100 using btree (b int4_ops)' bttest real 63.5 time psql -c 'create index c1000 on k1000 using btree (c int4_ops)' bttest real 636.9 time psql -c 'create index u1000 on k1000 using btree (b int4_ops)' bttest real 701.0
1997-02-12 06:04:52 +01:00
do {
if (_bt_taperead(itape) == 0) {
tapedone[t] = 1;
}
} while (!tapedone[t] && EMPTYTAPE(itape));
if (!tapedone[t]) {
++goodtapes;
e.btpqe_tape = t;
What looks like some *major* improvements to btree indexing... Patches from: aoki@CS.Berkeley.EDU (Paul M. Aoki) i gave jolly my btree bulkload code a long, long time ago but never gave him a bunch of my bugfixes. here's a diff against the 6.0 baseline. for some reason, this code has slowed down somewhat relative to the insertion-build code on very small tables. don't know why -- it used to be within about 10%. anyway, here are some (highly unscientific!) timings on a dec 3000/300 for synthetic tables with 10k, 100k and 1000k tuples (basically, 1mb, 10mb and 100mb heaps). 'c' means clustered (pre-sorted) inputs and 'u' means unclustered (randomly ordered) inputs. the 10k table basically fits in the buffer pool, but the 100k and 1000k tables don't. as you can see, insertion build is fine if you've sorted your heaps on your index key or if your heap fits in core, but is absolutely horrible on unordered data (yes, that's 7.5 hours to index 100mb of data...) because of the zillions of random i/os. if it doesn't work for you for whatever reason, you can always turn it back off by flipping the FastBuild flag in nbtree.c. i don't have time to maintain it. good luck! baseline code: time psql -c 'create index c10 on k10 using btree (c int4_ops)' bttest real 8.6 time psql -c 'create index u10 on k10 using btree (b int4_ops)' bttest real 9.1 time psql -c 'create index c100 on k100 using btree (c int4_ops)' bttest real 59.2 time psql -c 'create index u100 on k100 using btree (b int4_ops)' bttest real 652.4 time psql -c 'create index c1000 on k1000 using btree (c int4_ops)' bttest real 636.1 time psql -c 'create index u1000 on k1000 using btree (b int4_ops)' bttest real 26772.9 bulkloading code: time psql -c 'create index c10 on k10 using btree (c int4_ops)' bttest real 11.3 time psql -c 'create index u10 on k10 using btree (b int4_ops)' bttest real 10.4 time psql -c 'create index c100 on k100 using btree (c int4_ops)' bttest real 59.5 time psql -c 'create index u100 on k100 using btree (b int4_ops)' bttest real 63.5 time psql -c 'create index c1000 on k1000 using btree (c int4_ops)' bttest real 636.9 time psql -c 'create index u1000 on k1000 using btree (b int4_ops)' bttest real 701.0
1997-02-12 06:04:52 +01:00
_bt_setsortkey(index, _bt_tapenext(itape, &tapepos[t]),
&(e.btpqe_item));
if (e.btpqe_item.btsk_item != (BTItem) NULL) {
_bt_pqadd(&q, &e);
}
}
}
/*
* if we don't have any tapes with any input (i.e., they
What looks like some *major* improvements to btree indexing... Patches from: aoki@CS.Berkeley.EDU (Paul M. Aoki) i gave jolly my btree bulkload code a long, long time ago but never gave him a bunch of my bugfixes. here's a diff against the 6.0 baseline. for some reason, this code has slowed down somewhat relative to the insertion-build code on very small tables. don't know why -- it used to be within about 10%. anyway, here are some (highly unscientific!) timings on a dec 3000/300 for synthetic tables with 10k, 100k and 1000k tuples (basically, 1mb, 10mb and 100mb heaps). 'c' means clustered (pre-sorted) inputs and 'u' means unclustered (randomly ordered) inputs. the 10k table basically fits in the buffer pool, but the 100k and 1000k tables don't. as you can see, insertion build is fine if you've sorted your heaps on your index key or if your heap fits in core, but is absolutely horrible on unordered data (yes, that's 7.5 hours to index 100mb of data...) because of the zillions of random i/os. if it doesn't work for you for whatever reason, you can always turn it back off by flipping the FastBuild flag in nbtree.c. i don't have time to maintain it. good luck! baseline code: time psql -c 'create index c10 on k10 using btree (c int4_ops)' bttest real 8.6 time psql -c 'create index u10 on k10 using btree (b int4_ops)' bttest real 9.1 time psql -c 'create index c100 on k100 using btree (c int4_ops)' bttest real 59.2 time psql -c 'create index u100 on k100 using btree (b int4_ops)' bttest real 652.4 time psql -c 'create index c1000 on k1000 using btree (c int4_ops)' bttest real 636.1 time psql -c 'create index u1000 on k1000 using btree (b int4_ops)' bttest real 26772.9 bulkloading code: time psql -c 'create index c10 on k10 using btree (c int4_ops)' bttest real 11.3 time psql -c 'create index u10 on k10 using btree (b int4_ops)' bttest real 10.4 time psql -c 'create index c100 on k100 using btree (c int4_ops)' bttest real 59.5 time psql -c 'create index u100 on k100 using btree (b int4_ops)' bttest real 63.5 time psql -c 'create index c1000 on k1000 using btree (c int4_ops)' bttest real 636.9 time psql -c 'create index u1000 on k1000 using btree (b int4_ops)' bttest real 701.0
1997-02-12 06:04:52 +01:00
* are all at EOF), there is no work to do in this run --
* we must be done with this pass.
*/
if (goodtapes == 0) {
break; /* for */
}
++nruns;
/*
What looks like some *major* improvements to btree indexing... Patches from: aoki@CS.Berkeley.EDU (Paul M. Aoki) i gave jolly my btree bulkload code a long, long time ago but never gave him a bunch of my bugfixes. here's a diff against the 6.0 baseline. for some reason, this code has slowed down somewhat relative to the insertion-build code on very small tables. don't know why -- it used to be within about 10%. anyway, here are some (highly unscientific!) timings on a dec 3000/300 for synthetic tables with 10k, 100k and 1000k tuples (basically, 1mb, 10mb and 100mb heaps). 'c' means clustered (pre-sorted) inputs and 'u' means unclustered (randomly ordered) inputs. the 10k table basically fits in the buffer pool, but the 100k and 1000k tables don't. as you can see, insertion build is fine if you've sorted your heaps on your index key or if your heap fits in core, but is absolutely horrible on unordered data (yes, that's 7.5 hours to index 100mb of data...) because of the zillions of random i/os. if it doesn't work for you for whatever reason, you can always turn it back off by flipping the FastBuild flag in nbtree.c. i don't have time to maintain it. good luck! baseline code: time psql -c 'create index c10 on k10 using btree (c int4_ops)' bttest real 8.6 time psql -c 'create index u10 on k10 using btree (b int4_ops)' bttest real 9.1 time psql -c 'create index c100 on k100 using btree (c int4_ops)' bttest real 59.2 time psql -c 'create index u100 on k100 using btree (b int4_ops)' bttest real 652.4 time psql -c 'create index c1000 on k1000 using btree (c int4_ops)' bttest real 636.1 time psql -c 'create index u1000 on k1000 using btree (b int4_ops)' bttest real 26772.9 bulkloading code: time psql -c 'create index c10 on k10 using btree (c int4_ops)' bttest real 11.3 time psql -c 'create index u10 on k10 using btree (b int4_ops)' bttest real 10.4 time psql -c 'create index c100 on k100 using btree (c int4_ops)' bttest real 59.5 time psql -c 'create index u100 on k100 using btree (b int4_ops)' bttest real 63.5 time psql -c 'create index c1000 on k1000 using btree (c int4_ops)' bttest real 636.9 time psql -c 'create index u1000 on k1000 using btree (b int4_ops)' bttest real 701.0
1997-02-12 06:04:52 +01:00
* output the smallest element from the queue until there
* are no more.
*/
while (_bt_pqnext(&q, &e) >= 0) { /* item */
/*
* replace the element taken from priority queue,
* fetching a new block if needed. a tape can run out
* if it hits either End-Of-Run or EOF.
*/
t = e.btpqe_tape;
What looks like some *major* improvements to btree indexing... Patches from: aoki@CS.Berkeley.EDU (Paul M. Aoki) i gave jolly my btree bulkload code a long, long time ago but never gave him a bunch of my bugfixes. here's a diff against the 6.0 baseline. for some reason, this code has slowed down somewhat relative to the insertion-build code on very small tables. don't know why -- it used to be within about 10%. anyway, here are some (highly unscientific!) timings on a dec 3000/300 for synthetic tables with 10k, 100k and 1000k tuples (basically, 1mb, 10mb and 100mb heaps). 'c' means clustered (pre-sorted) inputs and 'u' means unclustered (randomly ordered) inputs. the 10k table basically fits in the buffer pool, but the 100k and 1000k tables don't. as you can see, insertion build is fine if you've sorted your heaps on your index key or if your heap fits in core, but is absolutely horrible on unordered data (yes, that's 7.5 hours to index 100mb of data...) because of the zillions of random i/os. if it doesn't work for you for whatever reason, you can always turn it back off by flipping the FastBuild flag in nbtree.c. i don't have time to maintain it. good luck! baseline code: time psql -c 'create index c10 on k10 using btree (c int4_ops)' bttest real 8.6 time psql -c 'create index u10 on k10 using btree (b int4_ops)' bttest real 9.1 time psql -c 'create index c100 on k100 using btree (c int4_ops)' bttest real 59.2 time psql -c 'create index u100 on k100 using btree (b int4_ops)' bttest real 652.4 time psql -c 'create index c1000 on k1000 using btree (c int4_ops)' bttest real 636.1 time psql -c 'create index u1000 on k1000 using btree (b int4_ops)' bttest real 26772.9 bulkloading code: time psql -c 'create index c10 on k10 using btree (c int4_ops)' bttest real 11.3 time psql -c 'create index u10 on k10 using btree (b int4_ops)' bttest real 10.4 time psql -c 'create index c100 on k100 using btree (c int4_ops)' bttest real 59.5 time psql -c 'create index u100 on k100 using btree (b int4_ops)' bttest real 63.5 time psql -c 'create index c1000 on k1000 using btree (c int4_ops)' bttest real 636.9 time psql -c 'create index u1000 on k1000 using btree (b int4_ops)' bttest real 701.0
1997-02-12 06:04:52 +01:00
bti = e.btpqe_item.btsk_item;
if (bti != (BTItem) NULL) {
btisz = BTITEMSZ(bti);
btisz = DOUBLEALIGN(btisz);
if (doleaf) {
What looks like some *major* improvements to btree indexing... Patches from: aoki@CS.Berkeley.EDU (Paul M. Aoki) i gave jolly my btree bulkload code a long, long time ago but never gave him a bunch of my bugfixes. here's a diff against the 6.0 baseline. for some reason, this code has slowed down somewhat relative to the insertion-build code on very small tables. don't know why -- it used to be within about 10%. anyway, here are some (highly unscientific!) timings on a dec 3000/300 for synthetic tables with 10k, 100k and 1000k tuples (basically, 1mb, 10mb and 100mb heaps). 'c' means clustered (pre-sorted) inputs and 'u' means unclustered (randomly ordered) inputs. the 10k table basically fits in the buffer pool, but the 100k and 1000k tables don't. as you can see, insertion build is fine if you've sorted your heaps on your index key or if your heap fits in core, but is absolutely horrible on unordered data (yes, that's 7.5 hours to index 100mb of data...) because of the zillions of random i/os. if it doesn't work for you for whatever reason, you can always turn it back off by flipping the FastBuild flag in nbtree.c. i don't have time to maintain it. good luck! baseline code: time psql -c 'create index c10 on k10 using btree (c int4_ops)' bttest real 8.6 time psql -c 'create index u10 on k10 using btree (b int4_ops)' bttest real 9.1 time psql -c 'create index c100 on k100 using btree (c int4_ops)' bttest real 59.2 time psql -c 'create index u100 on k100 using btree (b int4_ops)' bttest real 652.4 time psql -c 'create index c1000 on k1000 using btree (c int4_ops)' bttest real 636.1 time psql -c 'create index u1000 on k1000 using btree (b int4_ops)' bttest real 26772.9 bulkloading code: time psql -c 'create index c10 on k10 using btree (c int4_ops)' bttest real 11.3 time psql -c 'create index u10 on k10 using btree (b int4_ops)' bttest real 10.4 time psql -c 'create index c100 on k100 using btree (c int4_ops)' bttest real 59.5 time psql -c 'create index u100 on k100 using btree (b int4_ops)' bttest real 63.5 time psql -c 'create index c1000 on k1000 using btree (c int4_ops)' bttest real 636.9 time psql -c 'create index u1000 on k1000 using btree (b int4_ops)' bttest real 701.0
1997-02-12 06:04:52 +01:00
(void) _bt_buildadd(index, state, bti, BTP_LEAF);
#if defined(FASTBUILD_DEBUG) && defined(FASTBUILD_MERGE)
{
bool isnull;
Datum d = index_getattr(&(bti->bti_itup), 1,
What looks like some *major* improvements to btree indexing... Patches from: aoki@CS.Berkeley.EDU (Paul M. Aoki) i gave jolly my btree bulkload code a long, long time ago but never gave him a bunch of my bugfixes. here's a diff against the 6.0 baseline. for some reason, this code has slowed down somewhat relative to the insertion-build code on very small tables. don't know why -- it used to be within about 10%. anyway, here are some (highly unscientific!) timings on a dec 3000/300 for synthetic tables with 10k, 100k and 1000k tuples (basically, 1mb, 10mb and 100mb heaps). 'c' means clustered (pre-sorted) inputs and 'u' means unclustered (randomly ordered) inputs. the 10k table basically fits in the buffer pool, but the 100k and 1000k tables don't. as you can see, insertion build is fine if you've sorted your heaps on your index key or if your heap fits in core, but is absolutely horrible on unordered data (yes, that's 7.5 hours to index 100mb of data...) because of the zillions of random i/os. if it doesn't work for you for whatever reason, you can always turn it back off by flipping the FastBuild flag in nbtree.c. i don't have time to maintain it. good luck! baseline code: time psql -c 'create index c10 on k10 using btree (c int4_ops)' bttest real 8.6 time psql -c 'create index u10 on k10 using btree (b int4_ops)' bttest real 9.1 time psql -c 'create index c100 on k100 using btree (c int4_ops)' bttest real 59.2 time psql -c 'create index u100 on k100 using btree (b int4_ops)' bttest real 652.4 time psql -c 'create index c1000 on k1000 using btree (c int4_ops)' bttest real 636.1 time psql -c 'create index u1000 on k1000 using btree (b int4_ops)' bttest real 26772.9 bulkloading code: time psql -c 'create index c10 on k10 using btree (c int4_ops)' bttest real 11.3 time psql -c 'create index u10 on k10 using btree (b int4_ops)' bttest real 10.4 time psql -c 'create index c100 on k100 using btree (c int4_ops)' bttest real 59.5 time psql -c 'create index u100 on k100 using btree (b int4_ops)' bttest real 63.5 time psql -c 'create index c1000 on k1000 using btree (c int4_ops)' bttest real 636.9 time psql -c 'create index u1000 on k1000 using btree (b int4_ops)' bttest real 701.0
1997-02-12 06:04:52 +01:00
index->rd_att, &isnull);
printf("_bt_merge: [pass %d run %d] inserted <%x> from tape %d into block %d\n",
npass, nruns, d, t,
BufferGetBlockNumber(state->btps_buf));
}
What looks like some *major* improvements to btree indexing... Patches from: aoki@CS.Berkeley.EDU (Paul M. Aoki) i gave jolly my btree bulkload code a long, long time ago but never gave him a bunch of my bugfixes. here's a diff against the 6.0 baseline. for some reason, this code has slowed down somewhat relative to the insertion-build code on very small tables. don't know why -- it used to be within about 10%. anyway, here are some (highly unscientific!) timings on a dec 3000/300 for synthetic tables with 10k, 100k and 1000k tuples (basically, 1mb, 10mb and 100mb heaps). 'c' means clustered (pre-sorted) inputs and 'u' means unclustered (randomly ordered) inputs. the 10k table basically fits in the buffer pool, but the 100k and 1000k tables don't. as you can see, insertion build is fine if you've sorted your heaps on your index key or if your heap fits in core, but is absolutely horrible on unordered data (yes, that's 7.5 hours to index 100mb of data...) because of the zillions of random i/os. if it doesn't work for you for whatever reason, you can always turn it back off by flipping the FastBuild flag in nbtree.c. i don't have time to maintain it. good luck! baseline code: time psql -c 'create index c10 on k10 using btree (c int4_ops)' bttest real 8.6 time psql -c 'create index u10 on k10 using btree (b int4_ops)' bttest real 9.1 time psql -c 'create index c100 on k100 using btree (c int4_ops)' bttest real 59.2 time psql -c 'create index u100 on k100 using btree (b int4_ops)' bttest real 652.4 time psql -c 'create index c1000 on k1000 using btree (c int4_ops)' bttest real 636.1 time psql -c 'create index u1000 on k1000 using btree (b int4_ops)' bttest real 26772.9 bulkloading code: time psql -c 'create index c10 on k10 using btree (c int4_ops)' bttest real 11.3 time psql -c 'create index u10 on k10 using btree (b int4_ops)' bttest real 10.4 time psql -c 'create index c100 on k100 using btree (c int4_ops)' bttest real 59.5 time psql -c 'create index u100 on k100 using btree (b int4_ops)' bttest real 63.5 time psql -c 'create index c1000 on k1000 using btree (c int4_ops)' bttest real 636.9 time psql -c 'create index u1000 on k1000 using btree (b int4_ops)' bttest real 701.0
1997-02-12 06:04:52 +01:00
#endif /* FASTBUILD_DEBUG && FASTBUILD_MERGE */
} else {
if (SPCLEFT(otape) < btisz) {
/*
* if it's full, write it out and add the
What looks like some *major* improvements to btree indexing... Patches from: aoki@CS.Berkeley.EDU (Paul M. Aoki) i gave jolly my btree bulkload code a long, long time ago but never gave him a bunch of my bugfixes. here's a diff against the 6.0 baseline. for some reason, this code has slowed down somewhat relative to the insertion-build code on very small tables. don't know why -- it used to be within about 10%. anyway, here are some (highly unscientific!) timings on a dec 3000/300 for synthetic tables with 10k, 100k and 1000k tuples (basically, 1mb, 10mb and 100mb heaps). 'c' means clustered (pre-sorted) inputs and 'u' means unclustered (randomly ordered) inputs. the 10k table basically fits in the buffer pool, but the 100k and 1000k tables don't. as you can see, insertion build is fine if you've sorted your heaps on your index key or if your heap fits in core, but is absolutely horrible on unordered data (yes, that's 7.5 hours to index 100mb of data...) because of the zillions of random i/os. if it doesn't work for you for whatever reason, you can always turn it back off by flipping the FastBuild flag in nbtree.c. i don't have time to maintain it. good luck! baseline code: time psql -c 'create index c10 on k10 using btree (c int4_ops)' bttest real 8.6 time psql -c 'create index u10 on k10 using btree (b int4_ops)' bttest real 9.1 time psql -c 'create index c100 on k100 using btree (c int4_ops)' bttest real 59.2 time psql -c 'create index u100 on k100 using btree (b int4_ops)' bttest real 652.4 time psql -c 'create index c1000 on k1000 using btree (c int4_ops)' bttest real 636.1 time psql -c 'create index u1000 on k1000 using btree (b int4_ops)' bttest real 26772.9 bulkloading code: time psql -c 'create index c10 on k10 using btree (c int4_ops)' bttest real 11.3 time psql -c 'create index u10 on k10 using btree (b int4_ops)' bttest real 10.4 time psql -c 'create index c100 on k100 using btree (c int4_ops)' bttest real 59.5 time psql -c 'create index u100 on k100 using btree (b int4_ops)' bttest real 63.5 time psql -c 'create index c1000 on k1000 using btree (c int4_ops)' bttest real 636.9 time psql -c 'create index u1000 on k1000 using btree (b int4_ops)' bttest real 701.0
1997-02-12 06:04:52 +01:00
* item to the next block. (since we will
* be adding another tuple immediately
* after this, we can be sure that there
* will be at least one more block in this
* run and so we know we do *not* want to
* set End-Of-Run here.)
*/
_bt_tapewrite(otape, 0);
}
_bt_tapeadd(otape, bti, btisz);
What looks like some *major* improvements to btree indexing... Patches from: aoki@CS.Berkeley.EDU (Paul M. Aoki) i gave jolly my btree bulkload code a long, long time ago but never gave him a bunch of my bugfixes. here's a diff against the 6.0 baseline. for some reason, this code has slowed down somewhat relative to the insertion-build code on very small tables. don't know why -- it used to be within about 10%. anyway, here are some (highly unscientific!) timings on a dec 3000/300 for synthetic tables with 10k, 100k and 1000k tuples (basically, 1mb, 10mb and 100mb heaps). 'c' means clustered (pre-sorted) inputs and 'u' means unclustered (randomly ordered) inputs. the 10k table basically fits in the buffer pool, but the 100k and 1000k tables don't. as you can see, insertion build is fine if you've sorted your heaps on your index key or if your heap fits in core, but is absolutely horrible on unordered data (yes, that's 7.5 hours to index 100mb of data...) because of the zillions of random i/os. if it doesn't work for you for whatever reason, you can always turn it back off by flipping the FastBuild flag in nbtree.c. i don't have time to maintain it. good luck! baseline code: time psql -c 'create index c10 on k10 using btree (c int4_ops)' bttest real 8.6 time psql -c 'create index u10 on k10 using btree (b int4_ops)' bttest real 9.1 time psql -c 'create index c100 on k100 using btree (c int4_ops)' bttest real 59.2 time psql -c 'create index u100 on k100 using btree (b int4_ops)' bttest real 652.4 time psql -c 'create index c1000 on k1000 using btree (c int4_ops)' bttest real 636.1 time psql -c 'create index u1000 on k1000 using btree (b int4_ops)' bttest real 26772.9 bulkloading code: time psql -c 'create index c10 on k10 using btree (c int4_ops)' bttest real 11.3 time psql -c 'create index u10 on k10 using btree (b int4_ops)' bttest real 10.4 time psql -c 'create index c100 on k100 using btree (c int4_ops)' bttest real 59.5 time psql -c 'create index u100 on k100 using btree (b int4_ops)' bttest real 63.5 time psql -c 'create index c1000 on k1000 using btree (c int4_ops)' bttest real 636.9 time psql -c 'create index u1000 on k1000 using btree (b int4_ops)' bttest real 701.0
1997-02-12 06:04:52 +01:00
#if defined(FASTBUILD_DEBUG) && defined(FASTBUILD_MERGE)
{
bool isnull;
Datum d = index_getattr(&(bti->bti_itup), 1,
What looks like some *major* improvements to btree indexing... Patches from: aoki@CS.Berkeley.EDU (Paul M. Aoki) i gave jolly my btree bulkload code a long, long time ago but never gave him a bunch of my bugfixes. here's a diff against the 6.0 baseline. for some reason, this code has slowed down somewhat relative to the insertion-build code on very small tables. don't know why -- it used to be within about 10%. anyway, here are some (highly unscientific!) timings on a dec 3000/300 for synthetic tables with 10k, 100k and 1000k tuples (basically, 1mb, 10mb and 100mb heaps). 'c' means clustered (pre-sorted) inputs and 'u' means unclustered (randomly ordered) inputs. the 10k table basically fits in the buffer pool, but the 100k and 1000k tables don't. as you can see, insertion build is fine if you've sorted your heaps on your index key or if your heap fits in core, but is absolutely horrible on unordered data (yes, that's 7.5 hours to index 100mb of data...) because of the zillions of random i/os. if it doesn't work for you for whatever reason, you can always turn it back off by flipping the FastBuild flag in nbtree.c. i don't have time to maintain it. good luck! baseline code: time psql -c 'create index c10 on k10 using btree (c int4_ops)' bttest real 8.6 time psql -c 'create index u10 on k10 using btree (b int4_ops)' bttest real 9.1 time psql -c 'create index c100 on k100 using btree (c int4_ops)' bttest real 59.2 time psql -c 'create index u100 on k100 using btree (b int4_ops)' bttest real 652.4 time psql -c 'create index c1000 on k1000 using btree (c int4_ops)' bttest real 636.1 time psql -c 'create index u1000 on k1000 using btree (b int4_ops)' bttest real 26772.9 bulkloading code: time psql -c 'create index c10 on k10 using btree (c int4_ops)' bttest real 11.3 time psql -c 'create index u10 on k10 using btree (b int4_ops)' bttest real 10.4 time psql -c 'create index c100 on k100 using btree (c int4_ops)' bttest real 59.5 time psql -c 'create index u100 on k100 using btree (b int4_ops)' bttest real 63.5 time psql -c 'create index c1000 on k1000 using btree (c int4_ops)' bttest real 636.9 time psql -c 'create index u1000 on k1000 using btree (b int4_ops)' bttest real 701.0
1997-02-12 06:04:52 +01:00
index->rd_att, &isnull);
printf("_bt_merge: [pass %d run %d] inserted <%x> from tape %d into output tape %d\n",
npass, nruns, d, t,
btspool->bts_tape);
}
What looks like some *major* improvements to btree indexing... Patches from: aoki@CS.Berkeley.EDU (Paul M. Aoki) i gave jolly my btree bulkload code a long, long time ago but never gave him a bunch of my bugfixes. here's a diff against the 6.0 baseline. for some reason, this code has slowed down somewhat relative to the insertion-build code on very small tables. don't know why -- it used to be within about 10%. anyway, here are some (highly unscientific!) timings on a dec 3000/300 for synthetic tables with 10k, 100k and 1000k tuples (basically, 1mb, 10mb and 100mb heaps). 'c' means clustered (pre-sorted) inputs and 'u' means unclustered (randomly ordered) inputs. the 10k table basically fits in the buffer pool, but the 100k and 1000k tables don't. as you can see, insertion build is fine if you've sorted your heaps on your index key or if your heap fits in core, but is absolutely horrible on unordered data (yes, that's 7.5 hours to index 100mb of data...) because of the zillions of random i/os. if it doesn't work for you for whatever reason, you can always turn it back off by flipping the FastBuild flag in nbtree.c. i don't have time to maintain it. good luck! baseline code: time psql -c 'create index c10 on k10 using btree (c int4_ops)' bttest real 8.6 time psql -c 'create index u10 on k10 using btree (b int4_ops)' bttest real 9.1 time psql -c 'create index c100 on k100 using btree (c int4_ops)' bttest real 59.2 time psql -c 'create index u100 on k100 using btree (b int4_ops)' bttest real 652.4 time psql -c 'create index c1000 on k1000 using btree (c int4_ops)' bttest real 636.1 time psql -c 'create index u1000 on k1000 using btree (b int4_ops)' bttest real 26772.9 bulkloading code: time psql -c 'create index c10 on k10 using btree (c int4_ops)' bttest real 11.3 time psql -c 'create index u10 on k10 using btree (b int4_ops)' bttest real 10.4 time psql -c 'create index c100 on k100 using btree (c int4_ops)' bttest real 59.5 time psql -c 'create index u100 on k100 using btree (b int4_ops)' bttest real 63.5 time psql -c 'create index c1000 on k1000 using btree (c int4_ops)' bttest real 636.9 time psql -c 'create index u1000 on k1000 using btree (b int4_ops)' bttest real 701.0
1997-02-12 06:04:52 +01:00
#endif /* FASTBUILD_DEBUG && FASTBUILD_MERGE */
}
}
itape = btspool->bts_itape[t];
if (!tapedone[t]) {
BTItem newbti = _bt_tapenext(itape, &tapepos[t]);
if (newbti == (BTItem) NULL) {
What looks like some *major* improvements to btree indexing... Patches from: aoki@CS.Berkeley.EDU (Paul M. Aoki) i gave jolly my btree bulkload code a long, long time ago but never gave him a bunch of my bugfixes. here's a diff against the 6.0 baseline. for some reason, this code has slowed down somewhat relative to the insertion-build code on very small tables. don't know why -- it used to be within about 10%. anyway, here are some (highly unscientific!) timings on a dec 3000/300 for synthetic tables with 10k, 100k and 1000k tuples (basically, 1mb, 10mb and 100mb heaps). 'c' means clustered (pre-sorted) inputs and 'u' means unclustered (randomly ordered) inputs. the 10k table basically fits in the buffer pool, but the 100k and 1000k tables don't. as you can see, insertion build is fine if you've sorted your heaps on your index key or if your heap fits in core, but is absolutely horrible on unordered data (yes, that's 7.5 hours to index 100mb of data...) because of the zillions of random i/os. if it doesn't work for you for whatever reason, you can always turn it back off by flipping the FastBuild flag in nbtree.c. i don't have time to maintain it. good luck! baseline code: time psql -c 'create index c10 on k10 using btree (c int4_ops)' bttest real 8.6 time psql -c 'create index u10 on k10 using btree (b int4_ops)' bttest real 9.1 time psql -c 'create index c100 on k100 using btree (c int4_ops)' bttest real 59.2 time psql -c 'create index u100 on k100 using btree (b int4_ops)' bttest real 652.4 time psql -c 'create index c1000 on k1000 using btree (c int4_ops)' bttest real 636.1 time psql -c 'create index u1000 on k1000 using btree (b int4_ops)' bttest real 26772.9 bulkloading code: time psql -c 'create index c10 on k10 using btree (c int4_ops)' bttest real 11.3 time psql -c 'create index u10 on k10 using btree (b int4_ops)' bttest real 10.4 time psql -c 'create index c100 on k100 using btree (c int4_ops)' bttest real 59.5 time psql -c 'create index u100 on k100 using btree (b int4_ops)' bttest real 63.5 time psql -c 'create index c1000 on k1000 using btree (c int4_ops)' bttest real 636.9 time psql -c 'create index u1000 on k1000 using btree (b int4_ops)' bttest real 701.0
1997-02-12 06:04:52 +01:00
do {
if (_bt_taperead(itape) == 0) {
tapedone[t] = 1;
}
} while (!tapedone[t] && EMPTYTAPE(itape));
if (!tapedone[t]) {
tapepos[t] = itape->bttb_data;
newbti = _bt_tapenext(itape, &tapepos[t]);
}
}
if (newbti != (BTItem) NULL) {
BTPriQueueElem nexte;
nexte.btpqe_tape = t;
What looks like some *major* improvements to btree indexing... Patches from: aoki@CS.Berkeley.EDU (Paul M. Aoki) i gave jolly my btree bulkload code a long, long time ago but never gave him a bunch of my bugfixes. here's a diff against the 6.0 baseline. for some reason, this code has slowed down somewhat relative to the insertion-build code on very small tables. don't know why -- it used to be within about 10%. anyway, here are some (highly unscientific!) timings on a dec 3000/300 for synthetic tables with 10k, 100k and 1000k tuples (basically, 1mb, 10mb and 100mb heaps). 'c' means clustered (pre-sorted) inputs and 'u' means unclustered (randomly ordered) inputs. the 10k table basically fits in the buffer pool, but the 100k and 1000k tables don't. as you can see, insertion build is fine if you've sorted your heaps on your index key or if your heap fits in core, but is absolutely horrible on unordered data (yes, that's 7.5 hours to index 100mb of data...) because of the zillions of random i/os. if it doesn't work for you for whatever reason, you can always turn it back off by flipping the FastBuild flag in nbtree.c. i don't have time to maintain it. good luck! baseline code: time psql -c 'create index c10 on k10 using btree (c int4_ops)' bttest real 8.6 time psql -c 'create index u10 on k10 using btree (b int4_ops)' bttest real 9.1 time psql -c 'create index c100 on k100 using btree (c int4_ops)' bttest real 59.2 time psql -c 'create index u100 on k100 using btree (b int4_ops)' bttest real 652.4 time psql -c 'create index c1000 on k1000 using btree (c int4_ops)' bttest real 636.1 time psql -c 'create index u1000 on k1000 using btree (b int4_ops)' bttest real 26772.9 bulkloading code: time psql -c 'create index c10 on k10 using btree (c int4_ops)' bttest real 11.3 time psql -c 'create index u10 on k10 using btree (b int4_ops)' bttest real 10.4 time psql -c 'create index c100 on k100 using btree (c int4_ops)' bttest real 59.5 time psql -c 'create index u100 on k100 using btree (b int4_ops)' bttest real 63.5 time psql -c 'create index c1000 on k1000 using btree (c int4_ops)' bttest real 636.9 time psql -c 'create index u1000 on k1000 using btree (b int4_ops)' bttest real 701.0
1997-02-12 06:04:52 +01:00
_bt_setsortkey(index, newbti, &(nexte.btpqe_item));
_bt_pqadd(&q, &nexte);
}
}
} /* item */
What looks like some *major* improvements to btree indexing... Patches from: aoki@CS.Berkeley.EDU (Paul M. Aoki) i gave jolly my btree bulkload code a long, long time ago but never gave him a bunch of my bugfixes. here's a diff against the 6.0 baseline. for some reason, this code has slowed down somewhat relative to the insertion-build code on very small tables. don't know why -- it used to be within about 10%. anyway, here are some (highly unscientific!) timings on a dec 3000/300 for synthetic tables with 10k, 100k and 1000k tuples (basically, 1mb, 10mb and 100mb heaps). 'c' means clustered (pre-sorted) inputs and 'u' means unclustered (randomly ordered) inputs. the 10k table basically fits in the buffer pool, but the 100k and 1000k tables don't. as you can see, insertion build is fine if you've sorted your heaps on your index key or if your heap fits in core, but is absolutely horrible on unordered data (yes, that's 7.5 hours to index 100mb of data...) because of the zillions of random i/os. if it doesn't work for you for whatever reason, you can always turn it back off by flipping the FastBuild flag in nbtree.c. i don't have time to maintain it. good luck! baseline code: time psql -c 'create index c10 on k10 using btree (c int4_ops)' bttest real 8.6 time psql -c 'create index u10 on k10 using btree (b int4_ops)' bttest real 9.1 time psql -c 'create index c100 on k100 using btree (c int4_ops)' bttest real 59.2 time psql -c 'create index u100 on k100 using btree (b int4_ops)' bttest real 652.4 time psql -c 'create index c1000 on k1000 using btree (c int4_ops)' bttest real 636.1 time psql -c 'create index u1000 on k1000 using btree (b int4_ops)' bttest real 26772.9 bulkloading code: time psql -c 'create index c10 on k10 using btree (c int4_ops)' bttest real 11.3 time psql -c 'create index u10 on k10 using btree (b int4_ops)' bttest real 10.4 time psql -c 'create index c100 on k100 using btree (c int4_ops)' bttest real 59.5 time psql -c 'create index u100 on k100 using btree (b int4_ops)' bttest real 63.5 time psql -c 'create index c1000 on k1000 using btree (c int4_ops)' bttest real 636.9 time psql -c 'create index u1000 on k1000 using btree (b int4_ops)' bttest real 701.0
1997-02-12 06:04:52 +01:00
/*
* that's it for this run. flush the output tape, marking
* End-of-Run.
*/
_bt_tapewrite(otape, 1);
} /* run */
/*
* we are here because we ran out of input on all of the input
* tapes.
*
* if this pass did not generate more actual output runs than
* we have tapes, we know we have at most one run in each
* tape. this means that we are ready to merge into the final
* btree leaf pages instead of merging into a tape file.
*/
if (nruns <= btspool->bts_ntapes) {
doleaf = true;
}
} while (nruns > 0); /* pass */
What looks like some *major* improvements to btree indexing... Patches from: aoki@CS.Berkeley.EDU (Paul M. Aoki) i gave jolly my btree bulkload code a long, long time ago but never gave him a bunch of my bugfixes. here's a diff against the 6.0 baseline. for some reason, this code has slowed down somewhat relative to the insertion-build code on very small tables. don't know why -- it used to be within about 10%. anyway, here are some (highly unscientific!) timings on a dec 3000/300 for synthetic tables with 10k, 100k and 1000k tuples (basically, 1mb, 10mb and 100mb heaps). 'c' means clustered (pre-sorted) inputs and 'u' means unclustered (randomly ordered) inputs. the 10k table basically fits in the buffer pool, but the 100k and 1000k tables don't. as you can see, insertion build is fine if you've sorted your heaps on your index key or if your heap fits in core, but is absolutely horrible on unordered data (yes, that's 7.5 hours to index 100mb of data...) because of the zillions of random i/os. if it doesn't work for you for whatever reason, you can always turn it back off by flipping the FastBuild flag in nbtree.c. i don't have time to maintain it. good luck! baseline code: time psql -c 'create index c10 on k10 using btree (c int4_ops)' bttest real 8.6 time psql -c 'create index u10 on k10 using btree (b int4_ops)' bttest real 9.1 time psql -c 'create index c100 on k100 using btree (c int4_ops)' bttest real 59.2 time psql -c 'create index u100 on k100 using btree (b int4_ops)' bttest real 652.4 time psql -c 'create index c1000 on k1000 using btree (c int4_ops)' bttest real 636.1 time psql -c 'create index u1000 on k1000 using btree (b int4_ops)' bttest real 26772.9 bulkloading code: time psql -c 'create index c10 on k10 using btree (c int4_ops)' bttest real 11.3 time psql -c 'create index u10 on k10 using btree (b int4_ops)' bttest real 10.4 time psql -c 'create index c100 on k100 using btree (c int4_ops)' bttest real 59.5 time psql -c 'create index u100 on k100 using btree (b int4_ops)' bttest real 63.5 time psql -c 'create index c1000 on k1000 using btree (c int4_ops)' bttest real 636.9 time psql -c 'create index u1000 on k1000 using btree (b int4_ops)' bttest real 701.0
1997-02-12 06:04:52 +01:00
_bt_uppershutdown(index, state);
}
/*
What looks like some *major* improvements to btree indexing... Patches from: aoki@CS.Berkeley.EDU (Paul M. Aoki) i gave jolly my btree bulkload code a long, long time ago but never gave him a bunch of my bugfixes. here's a diff against the 6.0 baseline. for some reason, this code has slowed down somewhat relative to the insertion-build code on very small tables. don't know why -- it used to be within about 10%. anyway, here are some (highly unscientific!) timings on a dec 3000/300 for synthetic tables with 10k, 100k and 1000k tuples (basically, 1mb, 10mb and 100mb heaps). 'c' means clustered (pre-sorted) inputs and 'u' means unclustered (randomly ordered) inputs. the 10k table basically fits in the buffer pool, but the 100k and 1000k tables don't. as you can see, insertion build is fine if you've sorted your heaps on your index key or if your heap fits in core, but is absolutely horrible on unordered data (yes, that's 7.5 hours to index 100mb of data...) because of the zillions of random i/os. if it doesn't work for you for whatever reason, you can always turn it back off by flipping the FastBuild flag in nbtree.c. i don't have time to maintain it. good luck! baseline code: time psql -c 'create index c10 on k10 using btree (c int4_ops)' bttest real 8.6 time psql -c 'create index u10 on k10 using btree (b int4_ops)' bttest real 9.1 time psql -c 'create index c100 on k100 using btree (c int4_ops)' bttest real 59.2 time psql -c 'create index u100 on k100 using btree (b int4_ops)' bttest real 652.4 time psql -c 'create index c1000 on k1000 using btree (c int4_ops)' bttest real 636.1 time psql -c 'create index u1000 on k1000 using btree (b int4_ops)' bttest real 26772.9 bulkloading code: time psql -c 'create index c10 on k10 using btree (c int4_ops)' bttest real 11.3 time psql -c 'create index u10 on k10 using btree (b int4_ops)' bttest real 10.4 time psql -c 'create index c100 on k100 using btree (c int4_ops)' bttest real 59.5 time psql -c 'create index u100 on k100 using btree (b int4_ops)' bttest real 63.5 time psql -c 'create index c1000 on k1000 using btree (c int4_ops)' bttest real 636.9 time psql -c 'create index u1000 on k1000 using btree (b int4_ops)' bttest real 701.0
1997-02-12 06:04:52 +01:00
* given the (appropriately side-linked) leaf pages of a btree,
* construct the corresponding upper levels. we do this by inserting
* minimum keys from each page into parent pages as needed. the
* format of the internal pages is otherwise the same as for leaf
* pages.
*
* this routine is not called during conventional bulk-loading (in
* which case we can just build the upper levels as we create the
* sorted bottom level). it is only used for index recycling.
*/
void
What looks like some *major* improvements to btree indexing... Patches from: aoki@CS.Berkeley.EDU (Paul M. Aoki) i gave jolly my btree bulkload code a long, long time ago but never gave him a bunch of my bugfixes. here's a diff against the 6.0 baseline. for some reason, this code has slowed down somewhat relative to the insertion-build code on very small tables. don't know why -- it used to be within about 10%. anyway, here are some (highly unscientific!) timings on a dec 3000/300 for synthetic tables with 10k, 100k and 1000k tuples (basically, 1mb, 10mb and 100mb heaps). 'c' means clustered (pre-sorted) inputs and 'u' means unclustered (randomly ordered) inputs. the 10k table basically fits in the buffer pool, but the 100k and 1000k tables don't. as you can see, insertion build is fine if you've sorted your heaps on your index key or if your heap fits in core, but is absolutely horrible on unordered data (yes, that's 7.5 hours to index 100mb of data...) because of the zillions of random i/os. if it doesn't work for you for whatever reason, you can always turn it back off by flipping the FastBuild flag in nbtree.c. i don't have time to maintain it. good luck! baseline code: time psql -c 'create index c10 on k10 using btree (c int4_ops)' bttest real 8.6 time psql -c 'create index u10 on k10 using btree (b int4_ops)' bttest real 9.1 time psql -c 'create index c100 on k100 using btree (c int4_ops)' bttest real 59.2 time psql -c 'create index u100 on k100 using btree (b int4_ops)' bttest real 652.4 time psql -c 'create index c1000 on k1000 using btree (c int4_ops)' bttest real 636.1 time psql -c 'create index u1000 on k1000 using btree (b int4_ops)' bttest real 26772.9 bulkloading code: time psql -c 'create index c10 on k10 using btree (c int4_ops)' bttest real 11.3 time psql -c 'create index u10 on k10 using btree (b int4_ops)' bttest real 10.4 time psql -c 'create index c100 on k100 using btree (c int4_ops)' bttest real 59.5 time psql -c 'create index u100 on k100 using btree (b int4_ops)' bttest real 63.5 time psql -c 'create index c1000 on k1000 using btree (c int4_ops)' bttest real 636.9 time psql -c 'create index u1000 on k1000 using btree (b int4_ops)' bttest real 701.0
1997-02-12 06:04:52 +01:00
_bt_upperbuild(Relation index)
{
Buffer rbuf;
What looks like some *major* improvements to btree indexing... Patches from: aoki@CS.Berkeley.EDU (Paul M. Aoki) i gave jolly my btree bulkload code a long, long time ago but never gave him a bunch of my bugfixes. here's a diff against the 6.0 baseline. for some reason, this code has slowed down somewhat relative to the insertion-build code on very small tables. don't know why -- it used to be within about 10%. anyway, here are some (highly unscientific!) timings on a dec 3000/300 for synthetic tables with 10k, 100k and 1000k tuples (basically, 1mb, 10mb and 100mb heaps). 'c' means clustered (pre-sorted) inputs and 'u' means unclustered (randomly ordered) inputs. the 10k table basically fits in the buffer pool, but the 100k and 1000k tables don't. as you can see, insertion build is fine if you've sorted your heaps on your index key or if your heap fits in core, but is absolutely horrible on unordered data (yes, that's 7.5 hours to index 100mb of data...) because of the zillions of random i/os. if it doesn't work for you for whatever reason, you can always turn it back off by flipping the FastBuild flag in nbtree.c. i don't have time to maintain it. good luck! baseline code: time psql -c 'create index c10 on k10 using btree (c int4_ops)' bttest real 8.6 time psql -c 'create index u10 on k10 using btree (b int4_ops)' bttest real 9.1 time psql -c 'create index c100 on k100 using btree (c int4_ops)' bttest real 59.2 time psql -c 'create index u100 on k100 using btree (b int4_ops)' bttest real 652.4 time psql -c 'create index c1000 on k1000 using btree (c int4_ops)' bttest real 636.1 time psql -c 'create index u1000 on k1000 using btree (b int4_ops)' bttest real 26772.9 bulkloading code: time psql -c 'create index c10 on k10 using btree (c int4_ops)' bttest real 11.3 time psql -c 'create index u10 on k10 using btree (b int4_ops)' bttest real 10.4 time psql -c 'create index c100 on k100 using btree (c int4_ops)' bttest real 59.5 time psql -c 'create index u100 on k100 using btree (b int4_ops)' bttest real 63.5 time psql -c 'create index c1000 on k1000 using btree (c int4_ops)' bttest real 636.9 time psql -c 'create index u1000 on k1000 using btree (b int4_ops)' bttest real 701.0
1997-02-12 06:04:52 +01:00
BlockNumber blk;
Page rpage;
BTPageOpaque ropaque;
What looks like some *major* improvements to btree indexing... Patches from: aoki@CS.Berkeley.EDU (Paul M. Aoki) i gave jolly my btree bulkload code a long, long time ago but never gave him a bunch of my bugfixes. here's a diff against the 6.0 baseline. for some reason, this code has slowed down somewhat relative to the insertion-build code on very small tables. don't know why -- it used to be within about 10%. anyway, here are some (highly unscientific!) timings on a dec 3000/300 for synthetic tables with 10k, 100k and 1000k tuples (basically, 1mb, 10mb and 100mb heaps). 'c' means clustered (pre-sorted) inputs and 'u' means unclustered (randomly ordered) inputs. the 10k table basically fits in the buffer pool, but the 100k and 1000k tables don't. as you can see, insertion build is fine if you've sorted your heaps on your index key or if your heap fits in core, but is absolutely horrible on unordered data (yes, that's 7.5 hours to index 100mb of data...) because of the zillions of random i/os. if it doesn't work for you for whatever reason, you can always turn it back off by flipping the FastBuild flag in nbtree.c. i don't have time to maintain it. good luck! baseline code: time psql -c 'create index c10 on k10 using btree (c int4_ops)' bttest real 8.6 time psql -c 'create index u10 on k10 using btree (b int4_ops)' bttest real 9.1 time psql -c 'create index c100 on k100 using btree (c int4_ops)' bttest real 59.2 time psql -c 'create index u100 on k100 using btree (b int4_ops)' bttest real 652.4 time psql -c 'create index c1000 on k1000 using btree (c int4_ops)' bttest real 636.1 time psql -c 'create index u1000 on k1000 using btree (b int4_ops)' bttest real 26772.9 bulkloading code: time psql -c 'create index c10 on k10 using btree (c int4_ops)' bttest real 11.3 time psql -c 'create index u10 on k10 using btree (b int4_ops)' bttest real 10.4 time psql -c 'create index c100 on k100 using btree (c int4_ops)' bttest real 59.5 time psql -c 'create index u100 on k100 using btree (b int4_ops)' bttest real 63.5 time psql -c 'create index c1000 on k1000 using btree (c int4_ops)' bttest real 636.9 time psql -c 'create index u1000 on k1000 using btree (b int4_ops)' bttest real 701.0
1997-02-12 06:04:52 +01:00
BTPageState *state;
BTItem nbti;
/*
What looks like some *major* improvements to btree indexing... Patches from: aoki@CS.Berkeley.EDU (Paul M. Aoki) i gave jolly my btree bulkload code a long, long time ago but never gave him a bunch of my bugfixes. here's a diff against the 6.0 baseline. for some reason, this code has slowed down somewhat relative to the insertion-build code on very small tables. don't know why -- it used to be within about 10%. anyway, here are some (highly unscientific!) timings on a dec 3000/300 for synthetic tables with 10k, 100k and 1000k tuples (basically, 1mb, 10mb and 100mb heaps). 'c' means clustered (pre-sorted) inputs and 'u' means unclustered (randomly ordered) inputs. the 10k table basically fits in the buffer pool, but the 100k and 1000k tables don't. as you can see, insertion build is fine if you've sorted your heaps on your index key or if your heap fits in core, but is absolutely horrible on unordered data (yes, that's 7.5 hours to index 100mb of data...) because of the zillions of random i/os. if it doesn't work for you for whatever reason, you can always turn it back off by flipping the FastBuild flag in nbtree.c. i don't have time to maintain it. good luck! baseline code: time psql -c 'create index c10 on k10 using btree (c int4_ops)' bttest real 8.6 time psql -c 'create index u10 on k10 using btree (b int4_ops)' bttest real 9.1 time psql -c 'create index c100 on k100 using btree (c int4_ops)' bttest real 59.2 time psql -c 'create index u100 on k100 using btree (b int4_ops)' bttest real 652.4 time psql -c 'create index c1000 on k1000 using btree (c int4_ops)' bttest real 636.1 time psql -c 'create index u1000 on k1000 using btree (b int4_ops)' bttest real 26772.9 bulkloading code: time psql -c 'create index c10 on k10 using btree (c int4_ops)' bttest real 11.3 time psql -c 'create index u10 on k10 using btree (b int4_ops)' bttest real 10.4 time psql -c 'create index c100 on k100 using btree (c int4_ops)' bttest real 59.5 time psql -c 'create index u100 on k100 using btree (b int4_ops)' bttest real 63.5 time psql -c 'create index c1000 on k1000 using btree (c int4_ops)' bttest real 636.9 time psql -c 'create index u1000 on k1000 using btree (b int4_ops)' bttest real 701.0
1997-02-12 06:04:52 +01:00
* find the first leaf block. while we're at it, clear the
* BTP_ROOT flag that we set while building it (so we could find
* it later).
*/
What looks like some *major* improvements to btree indexing... Patches from: aoki@CS.Berkeley.EDU (Paul M. Aoki) i gave jolly my btree bulkload code a long, long time ago but never gave him a bunch of my bugfixes. here's a diff against the 6.0 baseline. for some reason, this code has slowed down somewhat relative to the insertion-build code on very small tables. don't know why -- it used to be within about 10%. anyway, here are some (highly unscientific!) timings on a dec 3000/300 for synthetic tables with 10k, 100k and 1000k tuples (basically, 1mb, 10mb and 100mb heaps). 'c' means clustered (pre-sorted) inputs and 'u' means unclustered (randomly ordered) inputs. the 10k table basically fits in the buffer pool, but the 100k and 1000k tables don't. as you can see, insertion build is fine if you've sorted your heaps on your index key or if your heap fits in core, but is absolutely horrible on unordered data (yes, that's 7.5 hours to index 100mb of data...) because of the zillions of random i/os. if it doesn't work for you for whatever reason, you can always turn it back off by flipping the FastBuild flag in nbtree.c. i don't have time to maintain it. good luck! baseline code: time psql -c 'create index c10 on k10 using btree (c int4_ops)' bttest real 8.6 time psql -c 'create index u10 on k10 using btree (b int4_ops)' bttest real 9.1 time psql -c 'create index c100 on k100 using btree (c int4_ops)' bttest real 59.2 time psql -c 'create index u100 on k100 using btree (b int4_ops)' bttest real 652.4 time psql -c 'create index c1000 on k1000 using btree (c int4_ops)' bttest real 636.1 time psql -c 'create index u1000 on k1000 using btree (b int4_ops)' bttest real 26772.9 bulkloading code: time psql -c 'create index c10 on k10 using btree (c int4_ops)' bttest real 11.3 time psql -c 'create index u10 on k10 using btree (b int4_ops)' bttest real 10.4 time psql -c 'create index c100 on k100 using btree (c int4_ops)' bttest real 59.5 time psql -c 'create index u100 on k100 using btree (b int4_ops)' bttest real 63.5 time psql -c 'create index c1000 on k1000 using btree (c int4_ops)' bttest real 636.9 time psql -c 'create index u1000 on k1000 using btree (b int4_ops)' bttest real 701.0
1997-02-12 06:04:52 +01:00
rbuf = _bt_getroot(index, BT_WRITE);
blk = BufferGetBlockNumber(rbuf);
rpage = BufferGetPage(rbuf);
ropaque = (BTPageOpaque) PageGetSpecialPointer(rpage);
ropaque->btpo_flags &= ~BTP_ROOT;
_bt_wrtbuf(index, rbuf);
What looks like some *major* improvements to btree indexing... Patches from: aoki@CS.Berkeley.EDU (Paul M. Aoki) i gave jolly my btree bulkload code a long, long time ago but never gave him a bunch of my bugfixes. here's a diff against the 6.0 baseline. for some reason, this code has slowed down somewhat relative to the insertion-build code on very small tables. don't know why -- it used to be within about 10%. anyway, here are some (highly unscientific!) timings on a dec 3000/300 for synthetic tables with 10k, 100k and 1000k tuples (basically, 1mb, 10mb and 100mb heaps). 'c' means clustered (pre-sorted) inputs and 'u' means unclustered (randomly ordered) inputs. the 10k table basically fits in the buffer pool, but the 100k and 1000k tables don't. as you can see, insertion build is fine if you've sorted your heaps on your index key or if your heap fits in core, but is absolutely horrible on unordered data (yes, that's 7.5 hours to index 100mb of data...) because of the zillions of random i/os. if it doesn't work for you for whatever reason, you can always turn it back off by flipping the FastBuild flag in nbtree.c. i don't have time to maintain it. good luck! baseline code: time psql -c 'create index c10 on k10 using btree (c int4_ops)' bttest real 8.6 time psql -c 'create index u10 on k10 using btree (b int4_ops)' bttest real 9.1 time psql -c 'create index c100 on k100 using btree (c int4_ops)' bttest real 59.2 time psql -c 'create index u100 on k100 using btree (b int4_ops)' bttest real 652.4 time psql -c 'create index c1000 on k1000 using btree (c int4_ops)' bttest real 636.1 time psql -c 'create index u1000 on k1000 using btree (b int4_ops)' bttest real 26772.9 bulkloading code: time psql -c 'create index c10 on k10 using btree (c int4_ops)' bttest real 11.3 time psql -c 'create index u10 on k10 using btree (b int4_ops)' bttest real 10.4 time psql -c 'create index c100 on k100 using btree (c int4_ops)' bttest real 59.5 time psql -c 'create index u100 on k100 using btree (b int4_ops)' bttest real 63.5 time psql -c 'create index c1000 on k1000 using btree (c int4_ops)' bttest real 636.9 time psql -c 'create index u1000 on k1000 using btree (b int4_ops)' bttest real 701.0
1997-02-12 06:04:52 +01:00
state = (BTPageState *) _bt_pagestate(index, 0, 0, true);
/* for each page... */
do {
What looks like some *major* improvements to btree indexing... Patches from: aoki@CS.Berkeley.EDU (Paul M. Aoki) i gave jolly my btree bulkload code a long, long time ago but never gave him a bunch of my bugfixes. here's a diff against the 6.0 baseline. for some reason, this code has slowed down somewhat relative to the insertion-build code on very small tables. don't know why -- it used to be within about 10%. anyway, here are some (highly unscientific!) timings on a dec 3000/300 for synthetic tables with 10k, 100k and 1000k tuples (basically, 1mb, 10mb and 100mb heaps). 'c' means clustered (pre-sorted) inputs and 'u' means unclustered (randomly ordered) inputs. the 10k table basically fits in the buffer pool, but the 100k and 1000k tables don't. as you can see, insertion build is fine if you've sorted your heaps on your index key or if your heap fits in core, but is absolutely horrible on unordered data (yes, that's 7.5 hours to index 100mb of data...) because of the zillions of random i/os. if it doesn't work for you for whatever reason, you can always turn it back off by flipping the FastBuild flag in nbtree.c. i don't have time to maintain it. good luck! baseline code: time psql -c 'create index c10 on k10 using btree (c int4_ops)' bttest real 8.6 time psql -c 'create index u10 on k10 using btree (b int4_ops)' bttest real 9.1 time psql -c 'create index c100 on k100 using btree (c int4_ops)' bttest real 59.2 time psql -c 'create index u100 on k100 using btree (b int4_ops)' bttest real 652.4 time psql -c 'create index c1000 on k1000 using btree (c int4_ops)' bttest real 636.1 time psql -c 'create index u1000 on k1000 using btree (b int4_ops)' bttest real 26772.9 bulkloading code: time psql -c 'create index c10 on k10 using btree (c int4_ops)' bttest real 11.3 time psql -c 'create index u10 on k10 using btree (b int4_ops)' bttest real 10.4 time psql -c 'create index c100 on k100 using btree (c int4_ops)' bttest real 59.5 time psql -c 'create index u100 on k100 using btree (b int4_ops)' bttest real 63.5 time psql -c 'create index c1000 on k1000 using btree (c int4_ops)' bttest real 636.9 time psql -c 'create index u1000 on k1000 using btree (b int4_ops)' bttest real 701.0
1997-02-12 06:04:52 +01:00
#if 0
printf("\t\tblk=%d\n", blk);
#endif
rbuf = _bt_getbuf(index, blk, BT_READ);
rpage = BufferGetPage(rbuf);
ropaque = (BTPageOpaque) PageGetSpecialPointer(rpage);
/* for each item... */
if (!PageIsEmpty(rpage)) {
/*
* form a new index tuple corresponding to the minimum key
* of the lower page and insert it into a page at this
* level.
*/
What looks like some *major* improvements to btree indexing... Patches from: aoki@CS.Berkeley.EDU (Paul M. Aoki) i gave jolly my btree bulkload code a long, long time ago but never gave him a bunch of my bugfixes. here's a diff against the 6.0 baseline. for some reason, this code has slowed down somewhat relative to the insertion-build code on very small tables. don't know why -- it used to be within about 10%. anyway, here are some (highly unscientific!) timings on a dec 3000/300 for synthetic tables with 10k, 100k and 1000k tuples (basically, 1mb, 10mb and 100mb heaps). 'c' means clustered (pre-sorted) inputs and 'u' means unclustered (randomly ordered) inputs. the 10k table basically fits in the buffer pool, but the 100k and 1000k tables don't. as you can see, insertion build is fine if you've sorted your heaps on your index key or if your heap fits in core, but is absolutely horrible on unordered data (yes, that's 7.5 hours to index 100mb of data...) because of the zillions of random i/os. if it doesn't work for you for whatever reason, you can always turn it back off by flipping the FastBuild flag in nbtree.c. i don't have time to maintain it. good luck! baseline code: time psql -c 'create index c10 on k10 using btree (c int4_ops)' bttest real 8.6 time psql -c 'create index u10 on k10 using btree (b int4_ops)' bttest real 9.1 time psql -c 'create index c100 on k100 using btree (c int4_ops)' bttest real 59.2 time psql -c 'create index u100 on k100 using btree (b int4_ops)' bttest real 652.4 time psql -c 'create index c1000 on k1000 using btree (c int4_ops)' bttest real 636.1 time psql -c 'create index u1000 on k1000 using btree (b int4_ops)' bttest real 26772.9 bulkloading code: time psql -c 'create index c10 on k10 using btree (c int4_ops)' bttest real 11.3 time psql -c 'create index u10 on k10 using btree (b int4_ops)' bttest real 10.4 time psql -c 'create index c100 on k100 using btree (c int4_ops)' bttest real 59.5 time psql -c 'create index u100 on k100 using btree (b int4_ops)' bttest real 63.5 time psql -c 'create index c1000 on k1000 using btree (c int4_ops)' bttest real 636.9 time psql -c 'create index u1000 on k1000 using btree (b int4_ops)' bttest real 701.0
1997-02-12 06:04:52 +01:00
nbti = _bt_minitem(rpage, blk, P_RIGHTMOST(ropaque));
#if defined(FASTBUILD_DEBUG) && defined(FASTBUILD_MERGE)
{
bool isnull;
What looks like some *major* improvements to btree indexing... Patches from: aoki@CS.Berkeley.EDU (Paul M. Aoki) i gave jolly my btree bulkload code a long, long time ago but never gave him a bunch of my bugfixes. here's a diff against the 6.0 baseline. for some reason, this code has slowed down somewhat relative to the insertion-build code on very small tables. don't know why -- it used to be within about 10%. anyway, here are some (highly unscientific!) timings on a dec 3000/300 for synthetic tables with 10k, 100k and 1000k tuples (basically, 1mb, 10mb and 100mb heaps). 'c' means clustered (pre-sorted) inputs and 'u' means unclustered (randomly ordered) inputs. the 10k table basically fits in the buffer pool, but the 100k and 1000k tables don't. as you can see, insertion build is fine if you've sorted your heaps on your index key or if your heap fits in core, but is absolutely horrible on unordered data (yes, that's 7.5 hours to index 100mb of data...) because of the zillions of random i/os. if it doesn't work for you for whatever reason, you can always turn it back off by flipping the FastBuild flag in nbtree.c. i don't have time to maintain it. good luck! baseline code: time psql -c 'create index c10 on k10 using btree (c int4_ops)' bttest real 8.6 time psql -c 'create index u10 on k10 using btree (b int4_ops)' bttest real 9.1 time psql -c 'create index c100 on k100 using btree (c int4_ops)' bttest real 59.2 time psql -c 'create index u100 on k100 using btree (b int4_ops)' bttest real 652.4 time psql -c 'create index c1000 on k1000 using btree (c int4_ops)' bttest real 636.1 time psql -c 'create index u1000 on k1000 using btree (b int4_ops)' bttest real 26772.9 bulkloading code: time psql -c 'create index c10 on k10 using btree (c int4_ops)' bttest real 11.3 time psql -c 'create index u10 on k10 using btree (b int4_ops)' bttest real 10.4 time psql -c 'create index c100 on k100 using btree (c int4_ops)' bttest real 59.5 time psql -c 'create index u100 on k100 using btree (b int4_ops)' bttest real 63.5 time psql -c 'create index c1000 on k1000 using btree (c int4_ops)' bttest real 636.9 time psql -c 'create index u1000 on k1000 using btree (b int4_ops)' bttest real 701.0
1997-02-12 06:04:52 +01:00
Datum d = index_getattr(&(nbti->bti_itup), 1, index->rd_att,
&isnull);
printf("_bt_upperbuild: inserting <%x> at %d\n",
What looks like some *major* improvements to btree indexing... Patches from: aoki@CS.Berkeley.EDU (Paul M. Aoki) i gave jolly my btree bulkload code a long, long time ago but never gave him a bunch of my bugfixes. here's a diff against the 6.0 baseline. for some reason, this code has slowed down somewhat relative to the insertion-build code on very small tables. don't know why -- it used to be within about 10%. anyway, here are some (highly unscientific!) timings on a dec 3000/300 for synthetic tables with 10k, 100k and 1000k tuples (basically, 1mb, 10mb and 100mb heaps). 'c' means clustered (pre-sorted) inputs and 'u' means unclustered (randomly ordered) inputs. the 10k table basically fits in the buffer pool, but the 100k and 1000k tables don't. as you can see, insertion build is fine if you've sorted your heaps on your index key or if your heap fits in core, but is absolutely horrible on unordered data (yes, that's 7.5 hours to index 100mb of data...) because of the zillions of random i/os. if it doesn't work for you for whatever reason, you can always turn it back off by flipping the FastBuild flag in nbtree.c. i don't have time to maintain it. good luck! baseline code: time psql -c 'create index c10 on k10 using btree (c int4_ops)' bttest real 8.6 time psql -c 'create index u10 on k10 using btree (b int4_ops)' bttest real 9.1 time psql -c 'create index c100 on k100 using btree (c int4_ops)' bttest real 59.2 time psql -c 'create index u100 on k100 using btree (b int4_ops)' bttest real 652.4 time psql -c 'create index c1000 on k1000 using btree (c int4_ops)' bttest real 636.1 time psql -c 'create index u1000 on k1000 using btree (b int4_ops)' bttest real 26772.9 bulkloading code: time psql -c 'create index c10 on k10 using btree (c int4_ops)' bttest real 11.3 time psql -c 'create index u10 on k10 using btree (b int4_ops)' bttest real 10.4 time psql -c 'create index c100 on k100 using btree (c int4_ops)' bttest real 59.5 time psql -c 'create index u100 on k100 using btree (b int4_ops)' bttest real 63.5 time psql -c 'create index c1000 on k1000 using btree (c int4_ops)' bttest real 636.9 time psql -c 'create index u1000 on k1000 using btree (b int4_ops)' bttest real 701.0
1997-02-12 06:04:52 +01:00
d, state->btps_level);
}
What looks like some *major* improvements to btree indexing... Patches from: aoki@CS.Berkeley.EDU (Paul M. Aoki) i gave jolly my btree bulkload code a long, long time ago but never gave him a bunch of my bugfixes. here's a diff against the 6.0 baseline. for some reason, this code has slowed down somewhat relative to the insertion-build code on very small tables. don't know why -- it used to be within about 10%. anyway, here are some (highly unscientific!) timings on a dec 3000/300 for synthetic tables with 10k, 100k and 1000k tuples (basically, 1mb, 10mb and 100mb heaps). 'c' means clustered (pre-sorted) inputs and 'u' means unclustered (randomly ordered) inputs. the 10k table basically fits in the buffer pool, but the 100k and 1000k tables don't. as you can see, insertion build is fine if you've sorted your heaps on your index key or if your heap fits in core, but is absolutely horrible on unordered data (yes, that's 7.5 hours to index 100mb of data...) because of the zillions of random i/os. if it doesn't work for you for whatever reason, you can always turn it back off by flipping the FastBuild flag in nbtree.c. i don't have time to maintain it. good luck! baseline code: time psql -c 'create index c10 on k10 using btree (c int4_ops)' bttest real 8.6 time psql -c 'create index u10 on k10 using btree (b int4_ops)' bttest real 9.1 time psql -c 'create index c100 on k100 using btree (c int4_ops)' bttest real 59.2 time psql -c 'create index u100 on k100 using btree (b int4_ops)' bttest real 652.4 time psql -c 'create index c1000 on k1000 using btree (c int4_ops)' bttest real 636.1 time psql -c 'create index u1000 on k1000 using btree (b int4_ops)' bttest real 26772.9 bulkloading code: time psql -c 'create index c10 on k10 using btree (c int4_ops)' bttest real 11.3 time psql -c 'create index u10 on k10 using btree (b int4_ops)' bttest real 10.4 time psql -c 'create index c100 on k100 using btree (c int4_ops)' bttest real 59.5 time psql -c 'create index u100 on k100 using btree (b int4_ops)' bttest real 63.5 time psql -c 'create index c1000 on k1000 using btree (c int4_ops)' bttest real 636.9 time psql -c 'create index u1000 on k1000 using btree (b int4_ops)' bttest real 701.0
1997-02-12 06:04:52 +01:00
#endif /* FASTBUILD_DEBUG && FASTBUILD_MERGE */
(void) _bt_buildadd(index, state, nbti, 0);
pfree((void *) nbti);
}
blk = ropaque->btpo_next;
_bt_relbuf(index, rbuf, BT_READ);
} while (blk != P_NONE);
What looks like some *major* improvements to btree indexing... Patches from: aoki@CS.Berkeley.EDU (Paul M. Aoki) i gave jolly my btree bulkload code a long, long time ago but never gave him a bunch of my bugfixes. here's a diff against the 6.0 baseline. for some reason, this code has slowed down somewhat relative to the insertion-build code on very small tables. don't know why -- it used to be within about 10%. anyway, here are some (highly unscientific!) timings on a dec 3000/300 for synthetic tables with 10k, 100k and 1000k tuples (basically, 1mb, 10mb and 100mb heaps). 'c' means clustered (pre-sorted) inputs and 'u' means unclustered (randomly ordered) inputs. the 10k table basically fits in the buffer pool, but the 100k and 1000k tables don't. as you can see, insertion build is fine if you've sorted your heaps on your index key or if your heap fits in core, but is absolutely horrible on unordered data (yes, that's 7.5 hours to index 100mb of data...) because of the zillions of random i/os. if it doesn't work for you for whatever reason, you can always turn it back off by flipping the FastBuild flag in nbtree.c. i don't have time to maintain it. good luck! baseline code: time psql -c 'create index c10 on k10 using btree (c int4_ops)' bttest real 8.6 time psql -c 'create index u10 on k10 using btree (b int4_ops)' bttest real 9.1 time psql -c 'create index c100 on k100 using btree (c int4_ops)' bttest real 59.2 time psql -c 'create index u100 on k100 using btree (b int4_ops)' bttest real 652.4 time psql -c 'create index c1000 on k1000 using btree (c int4_ops)' bttest real 636.1 time psql -c 'create index u1000 on k1000 using btree (b int4_ops)' bttest real 26772.9 bulkloading code: time psql -c 'create index c10 on k10 using btree (c int4_ops)' bttest real 11.3 time psql -c 'create index u10 on k10 using btree (b int4_ops)' bttest real 10.4 time psql -c 'create index c100 on k100 using btree (c int4_ops)' bttest real 59.5 time psql -c 'create index u100 on k100 using btree (b int4_ops)' bttest real 63.5 time psql -c 'create index c1000 on k1000 using btree (c int4_ops)' bttest real 636.9 time psql -c 'create index u1000 on k1000 using btree (b int4_ops)' bttest real 701.0
1997-02-12 06:04:52 +01:00
_bt_uppershutdown(index, state);
}
/*
* given a spool loading by successive calls to _bt_spool, create an
* entire btree.
*/
void
_bt_leafbuild(Relation index, void *spool)
{
What looks like some *major* improvements to btree indexing... Patches from: aoki@CS.Berkeley.EDU (Paul M. Aoki) i gave jolly my btree bulkload code a long, long time ago but never gave him a bunch of my bugfixes. here's a diff against the 6.0 baseline. for some reason, this code has slowed down somewhat relative to the insertion-build code on very small tables. don't know why -- it used to be within about 10%. anyway, here are some (highly unscientific!) timings on a dec 3000/300 for synthetic tables with 10k, 100k and 1000k tuples (basically, 1mb, 10mb and 100mb heaps). 'c' means clustered (pre-sorted) inputs and 'u' means unclustered (randomly ordered) inputs. the 10k table basically fits in the buffer pool, but the 100k and 1000k tables don't. as you can see, insertion build is fine if you've sorted your heaps on your index key or if your heap fits in core, but is absolutely horrible on unordered data (yes, that's 7.5 hours to index 100mb of data...) because of the zillions of random i/os. if it doesn't work for you for whatever reason, you can always turn it back off by flipping the FastBuild flag in nbtree.c. i don't have time to maintain it. good luck! baseline code: time psql -c 'create index c10 on k10 using btree (c int4_ops)' bttest real 8.6 time psql -c 'create index u10 on k10 using btree (b int4_ops)' bttest real 9.1 time psql -c 'create index c100 on k100 using btree (c int4_ops)' bttest real 59.2 time psql -c 'create index u100 on k100 using btree (b int4_ops)' bttest real 652.4 time psql -c 'create index c1000 on k1000 using btree (c int4_ops)' bttest real 636.1 time psql -c 'create index u1000 on k1000 using btree (b int4_ops)' bttest real 26772.9 bulkloading code: time psql -c 'create index c10 on k10 using btree (c int4_ops)' bttest real 11.3 time psql -c 'create index u10 on k10 using btree (b int4_ops)' bttest real 10.4 time psql -c 'create index c100 on k100 using btree (c int4_ops)' bttest real 59.5 time psql -c 'create index u100 on k100 using btree (b int4_ops)' bttest real 63.5 time psql -c 'create index c1000 on k1000 using btree (c int4_ops)' bttest real 636.9 time psql -c 'create index u1000 on k1000 using btree (b int4_ops)' bttest real 701.0
1997-02-12 06:04:52 +01:00
_bt_merge(index, (BTSpool *) spool);
}