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
(old _bt_compare always returned >= 0 while comparing with P_HIKEY
on root page - it breaks root page when _bt_insertonpg tries insert
new minimal key into root page).
2. Fixed bug concerns "empty" pages: non-rightmost pages with only P_HIKEY
present on it. Such pages appear after vacuum.
Changes:
* Unique index capability works using the syntax 'create unique
index'.
* Duplicate OID's in the system tables are removed. I put
little scripts called 'duplicate_oids' and 'find_oid' in
include/catalog that help to find and remove duplicate OID's.
I also moved 'unused_oids' from backend/catalog to
include/catalog, since it has to be in the same directory
as the include files in order to work.
* The backend tries converting the name of a function or aggregate
to all lowercase if the original name given doesn't work (mostly
for compatibility with ODBC).
* You can 'SELECT NULL' to your heart's content.
* I put my _bt_updateitem fix in instead, which uses
_bt_insertonpg so that even if the new key is so big that
the page has to be split, everything still works.
* All literal references to system catalog OID's have been
replaced with references to define'd constants from the catalog
header files.
* I added a couple of node copy functions. I think this was a
preliminary attempt to get rules to work.
I found another bug in btree index. Looking at the code it seems that NULL
keys are never used to build or scan a btree index (see the explain commands
in the example). However this is not the case when a null key is retrieved
in an outer loop of a join select and used in an index scan of an inner loop.
This bug causes at least three kinds of problems:
1) the backend crashes when it tries to compare a text string with a null.
2) it is not possible to find tuples with null keys in a join.
3) null is considered equal to 0 when the datum is passed by value, see
the last query.
Submitted by: Massimo Dal Zotto <dz@cs.unitn.it>
My guess is that the thing had bugs, and the pfree was commented out.
The thing is probabally free'ed anyway at the end, so it was not a bad
thing.
If it does cause a bug, it will generate an error when hit, so I say
unless someone else knows, let's remove it and run the regression test.
-Bruce
> INDEXED searches in some cases DO NOT WORK.
> Although simple search expressions (i.e. with a constant value on
> the right side of an operator) work, performing a join (by putting
> a field of some other table on the right side of an operator) produces
> empty output.
> WITHOUT indices, everything works fine.
>
submitted by: "Vadim B. Mikheev" <root@ais.sable.krasnoyarsk.su>
Vadim B. Mikheev
Bruce Momjian
Marc G. Fournier
Bryan Henderson