On 06.10.2011 11:22, Alexander Korotkov wrote:
Thanks. I'm going to continue work on application of this split method in
following areas:
1) range types
2) seg contrib module
3) cube contrib module (there situation is not so easy, probably some
heuristic of split method selection would be require
On Thu, Oct 6, 2011 at 11:06 AM, Heikki Linnakangas <
heikki.linnakan...@enterprisedb.com> wrote:
> On 05.10.2011 15:59, Alexander Korotkov wrote:
>
>> Path without allocating extra bytes is attached.
>> I run some more detailed tests on geonames and two smaller datasets from
>> rtreeportal.org.
>
On 05.10.2011 15:59, Alexander Korotkov wrote:
Path without allocating extra bytes is attached.
I run some more detailed tests on geonames and two smaller datasets from
rtreeportal.org.
Ok, thanks. Looks good to me now, so committed.
--
Heikki Linnakangas
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterpri
Path without allocating extra bytes is attached.
I run some more detailed tests on geonames and two smaller datasets from
rtreeportal.org.
Test tables are following:
1) test1 - geonames
2) test2 - California Roads, containing the MBRs of 2,249,727 streets
3) test3 - Tiger Streams, containing the MB
On Wed, Oct 5, 2011 at 11:37 AM, Heikki Linnakangas <
heikki.linnakan...@enterprisedb.com> wrote:
> On 04.10.2011 15:10, Alexander Korotkov wrote:
>
>> On Tue, Oct 4, 2011 at 1:46 PM, Heikki Linnakangas<
>> heikki.linnakangas@**enterprisedb.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> Ok. Could you phrase that as a cod
On 04.10.2011 15:10, Alexander Korotkov wrote:
On Tue, Oct 4, 2011 at 1:46 PM, Heikki Linnakangas<
heikki.linnakan...@enterprisedb.com> wrote:
Ok. Could you phrase that as a code comment?
Here's a version of the patch I've been working on. There's no functional
changes, just a lot of moving t
On Tue, Oct 4, 2011 at 1:46 PM, Heikki Linnakangas <
heikki.linnakan...@enterprisedb.com> wrote:
> Ok. Could you phrase that as a code comment?
>
> Here's a version of the patch I've been working on. There's no functional
> changes, just a lot of moving things around, comment changes, etc. to
> ho
On 04.10.2011 11:51, Alexander Korotkov wrote:
On Tue, Oct 4, 2011 at 12:12 PM, Heikki Linnakangas<
heikki.linnakan...@enterprisedb.com> wrote:
Can you elaborate the consider-split algorithm? The criteria to select the
new split over the previously selected one is this:
! /*
!
On Tue, Oct 4, 2011 at 12:12 PM, Heikki Linnakangas <
heikki.linnakan...@enterprisedb.com> wrote:
> Can you elaborate the consider-split algorithm? The criteria to select the
> new split over the previously selected one is this:
>
>> ! /*
>> !* If ratio is acceptable,
On 22.09.2011 22:12, Alexander Korotkov wrote:
Patch without that dead code is attached.
Thanks.
Can you elaborate the consider-split algorithm? The criteria to select
the new split over the previously selected one is this:
! /*
!* If ratio is acceptable, we sho
On Thu, Sep 22, 2011 at 3:31 PM, Alexander Korotkov wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 22, 2011 at 3:22 PM, Heikki Linnakangas <
> heikki.linnakan...@enterprisedb.com> wrote:
>
>> 'lower' and 'upper' are not used for anything in the above. Is that just
>>> dead code that can be removed, or is there something mi
On Thu, Sep 22, 2011 at 3:22 PM, Heikki Linnakangas <
heikki.linnakan...@enterprisedb.com> wrote:
> ! /*
>> !* Calculate delta between penalties of join "common
>> entries" to
>> !* different groups.
>> !*/
>> ! for (i =
! /*
!* Calculate delta between penalties of join "common entries" to
!* different groups.
!*/
! for (i = 0; i < commonEntriesCount; i++)
{
! double lower,
!
I've processed the results of the tests with double sorting split which I've
sheduled for buffering build. I've updated wiki page with them:
http://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/Fast_GiST_index_build_GSoC_2011#Testing_results
Raw results of query speed measues are in the attachment. There number of
page
On 18 September 2011 01:51, Greg Stark wrote:
> I think we provided the qsort implementation for the benefit of
> platforms that didn't have a decent one and then ended up switching to
> use it always for some reason I don't recall. It wasn't because we
> thought we were better at writing qsort i
On Sat, Sep 17, 2011 at 9:09 PM, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
> I find it curious that we go to the trouble of
> providing a custom qsort implementation in qsort.c, pg_qsort, but
> haven't gone one step further and considered inlining effects.
I think we provided the qsort implementation for the benef
On 15 September 2011 19:46, Alexander Korotkov wrote:
> Proposed algorithm finds following splits by single pass on two arrays: one
> sorted by lower bound of interval and another sorted by upper bound of
> interval.
Have you considered if further performance improvements could come
from providin
On Sat, Sep 17, 2011 at 9:00 PM, Heikki Linnakangas <
heikki.linnakan...@enterprisedb.com> wrote:
> Thanks! It does look a lot simpler that way, IMHO. I presume this didn't
> change the performance characteristics?
>
On the tests I provided in the first letter difference seems to be
insignificant.
On 17.09.2011 17:36, Alexander Korotkov wrote:
On Fri, Sep 16, 2011 at 3:07 PM, Heikki Linnakangas<
heikki.linnakan...@enterprisedb.com> wrote:
That looks awfully complicated. I don't understand how that works. I wonder
if two passes would be simpler?
I doubt it becomes much simpler, but her
On Fri, Sep 16, 2011 at 3:07 PM, Heikki Linnakangas <
heikki.linnakan...@enterprisedb.com> wrote:
> That looks awfully complicated. I don't understand how that works. I wonder
> if two passes would be simpler?
>
I doubt it becomes much simpler, but here it is.
--
With best regards,
Alexander
On 15.09.2011 21:46, Alexander Korotkov wrote:
On Thu, Sep 15, 2011 at 7:27 PM, Heikki Linnakangas<
heikki.linnakan...@enterprisedb.com> wrote:
I've looked at the patch, and took a brief look at the paper - but I still
don't understand the algorithm. I just can't get my head around the concept
On Thu, Sep 15, 2011 at 7:27 PM, Heikki Linnakangas <
heikki.linnakan...@enterprisedb.com> wrote:
> I've looked at the patch, and took a brief look at the paper - but I still
> don't understand the algorithm. I just can't get my head around the concepts
> of split pairs and left/right groups. Can
On 11.09.2011 22:30, Alexander Korotkov wrote:
Hackers,
I've got my patch with double sorting picksplit impementation for GiST into
more acceptable form. A little of testing is below. Index creation time is
slightly higher, but search is much faster. The testing datasets were
following:
1) unifo
Hackers,
I've got my patch with double sorting picksplit impementation for GiST into
more acceptable form. A little of testing is below. Index creation time is
slightly higher, but search is much faster. The testing datasets were
following:
1) uniform dataset - 10M rows
2) geonames points - 7.6M r
24 matches
Mail list logo
