On Sat, Mar 25, 2017 at 11:02 AM, Amit Kapila <amit.kapil...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 23, 2017 at 11:24 PM, Ashutosh Sharma <ashu.coe...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> On Tue, Feb 7, 2017 at 9:23 AM, Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Mon, Feb 6, 2017 at 10:40 PM, Amit Kapila <amit.kapil...@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>>> Maybe we should call them "unused pages".
>>>>
>>>> +1. If we consider some more names for that column then probably one
>>>> alternative could be "empty pages".
>>>
>>> Yeah, but I think "unused" might be better. Because a page could be
>>> in use (as an overflow page or primary bucket page) and still be
>>> empty.
>>>
>>
>> Based on the earlier discussions, I have prepared a patch that would
>> allow pgstathashindex() to show the number of unused pages in hash
>> index. Please find the attached patch for the same. Thanks.
>>
>
> else if (opaque->hasho_flag & LH_BITMAP_PAGE)
> stats.bitmap_pages++;
> + else if (PageIsEmpty(page))
> + stats.unused_pages++;
>
> I think having this check after PageIsNew() makes more sense then
> having at the place where you currently have,
I don't think having it just below PageIsNew() check would be good.
The reason being, there can be a bucket page which is in use but still
be empty. So, if we add a check just below PageIsNew check then even
though a page is marked as bucket page and is empty it will be shown
as unused page which i feel is not correct. Here is one simple example
that illustrates this point,
Query:
======
select hash_page_type(get_raw_page('con_hash_index', 17));
gdb shows following info for this block number 17,
(gdb) p *(PageHeader)page
$1 = {pd_lsn = {xlogid = 0, xrecoff = 122297104}, pd_checksum = 0,
pd_flags = 0, pd_lower = 24, pd_upper = 8176, pd_special = 8176,
pd_pagesize_version = 8196, pd_prune_xid = 0, pd_linp = 0x22a82d8}
(gdb) p ((HashPageOpaque) PageGetSpecialPointer(page))->hasho_flag
$2 = 66
(gdb) p (((HashPageOpaque) PageGetSpecialPointer(page))->hasho_flag
& LH_BUCKET_PAGE)
$3 = 2
>From above information it is clear that this page is a bucket page and
is empty. I think it should be shown as bucket page rather than unused
page. Also, this has already been discussed in [1].
other than that
> code-wise your patch looks okay, although I haven't tested it.
>
I have tested it properly and didn't find any issues.
> I think this should also be tracked under PostgreSQL 10 open items,
> but as this is not directly a bug, so not sure, what do others think?
Well, Even I am not sure if this has to be added under open items list
or not. Thanks.
[1] -
https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CA%2BTgmobwLKpKe99qnTJCBzFB4UaVGKrLNX3hwp8wcxObMDx7pA%40mail.gmail.com
--
With Regards,
Ashutosh Sharma
EnterpriseDB:http://www.enterprisedb.com
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
