postgresql/src/backend/access/hash/hashsort.c
2009-01-01 17:24:05 +00:00

117 lines
2.9 KiB
C

/*-------------------------------------------------------------------------
*
* hashsort.c
* Sort tuples for insertion into a new hash index.
*
* When building a very large hash index, we pre-sort the tuples by bucket
* number to improve locality of access to the index, and thereby avoid
* thrashing. We use tuplesort.c to sort the given index tuples into order.
*
* Note: if the number of rows in the table has been underestimated,
* bucket splits may occur during the index build. In that case we'd
* be inserting into two or more buckets for each possible masked-off
* hash code value. That's no big problem though, since we'll still have
* plenty of locality of access.
*
*
* Portions Copyright (c) 1996-2009, PostgreSQL Global Development Group
* Portions Copyright (c) 1994, Regents of the University of California
*
* IDENTIFICATION
* $PostgreSQL: pgsql/src/backend/access/hash/hashsort.c,v 1.2 2009/01/01 17:23:35 momjian Exp $
*
*-------------------------------------------------------------------------
*/
#include "postgres.h"
#include "access/hash.h"
#include "miscadmin.h"
#include "utils/tuplesort.h"
/*
* Status record for spooling/sorting phase.
*/
struct HSpool
{
Tuplesortstate *sortstate; /* state data for tuplesort.c */
Relation index;
};
/*
* create and initialize a spool structure
*/
HSpool *
_h_spoolinit(Relation index, uint32 num_buckets)
{
HSpool *hspool = (HSpool *) palloc0(sizeof(HSpool));
uint32 hash_mask;
hspool->index = index;
/*
* Determine the bitmask for hash code values. Since there are currently
* num_buckets buckets in the index, the appropriate mask can be computed
* as follows.
*
* Note: at present, the passed-in num_buckets is always a power of 2,
* so we could just compute num_buckets - 1. We prefer not to assume
* that here, though.
*/
hash_mask = (((uint32) 1) << _hash_log2(num_buckets)) - 1;
/*
* We size the sort area as maintenance_work_mem rather than work_mem to
* speed index creation. This should be OK since a single backend can't
* run multiple index creations in parallel.
*/
hspool->sortstate = tuplesort_begin_index_hash(index,
hash_mask,
maintenance_work_mem,
false);
return hspool;
}
/*
* clean up a spool structure and its substructures.
*/
void
_h_spooldestroy(HSpool *hspool)
{
tuplesort_end(hspool->sortstate);
pfree(hspool);
}
/*
* spool an index entry into the sort file.
*/
void
_h_spool(IndexTuple itup, HSpool *hspool)
{
tuplesort_putindextuple(hspool->sortstate, itup);
}
/*
* given a spool loaded by successive calls to _h_spool,
* create an entire index.
*/
void
_h_indexbuild(HSpool *hspool)
{
IndexTuple itup;
bool should_free;
tuplesort_performsort(hspool->sortstate);
while ((itup = tuplesort_getindextuple(hspool->sortstate,
true, &should_free)) != NULL)
{
_hash_doinsert(hspool->index, itup);
if (should_free)
pfree(itup);
}
}