Re: [HACKERS] Fractal tree indexing

Hi hackers! Here is prototype of procrastinating GiST. Or lazy GiST. Or buffered GiST. Indeed, there is nothing fractal about it. The concept is leaf tuples stall on internal pages. From time to time they are pushed down in batches. This code is far from perfect, I've coded this only for the rese

Re: [HACKERS] Fractal tree indexing

On Wed, Feb 13, 2013 at 1:31 PM, Alexander Korotkov wrote: > On Wed, Feb 13, 2013 at 4:51 PM, Greg Stark wrote: >> >> Heikki was talking about a generic WAL record type that would just >> store a binary delta between the version of the block when it was >> locked and when it was unlocked. That wo

Re: [HACKERS] Fractal tree indexing

On Wed, Feb 13, 2013 at 8:20 AM, Tom Lane wrote: > Heikki Linnakangas writes: >> The basic idea of a fractal tree index is to attach a buffer to every >> non-leaf page. On insertion, instead of descending all the way down to >> the correct leaf page, the new tuple is put on the buffer at the root

Re: [HACKERS] Fractal tree indexing

On 02/13/2013 01:01 AM, Atri Sharma wrote: > Hi all, > > Just a curiosity I couldnt control. I was recently reading about > Fractal tree indexing > (http://www.tokutek.com/2012/12/fractal-tree-indexing-overview/) and > how TokuDB engine for MySQL is really working nicely with big data. > > I was

Re: [HACKERS] Fractal tree indexing

On 02/13/2013 09:54 AM, Simon Riggs wrote: I'd call it out as a marketing name. I guess it's fractal in the sense that all levels of the tree can hold "leaf tuples" in the buffers; the structure looks the same no matter how deep you zoom, like a fractal.. But "Buffered" would be more appropriat

Re: [HACKERS] Fractal tree indexing

On 13 February 2013 16:48, Heikki Linnakangas wrote: > On 13.02.2013 18:20, Tom Lane wrote: >> >> Heikki Linnakangas writes: >>> >>> The basic idea of a fractal tree index is to attach a buffer to every >>> non-leaf page. On insertion, instead of descending all the way down to >>> the correct lea

Re: [HACKERS] Fractal tree indexing

Sent from my iPad On 13-Feb-2013, at 22:21, Heikki Linnakangas wrote: > On 13.02.2013 18:43, Andrew Dunstan wrote: >> >> On 02/13/2013 11:20 AM, Tom Lane wrote: >>> Heikki Linnakangas writes: The basic fractal indexes is what I've read on some presentation slides on the 'net, so

Re: [HACKERS] Fractal tree indexing

Yeah,it is just a fancy name for something that has nothing to do with fractals.I guess everything suave these days is fractal! That said,the buffered concept itself looks really cool and should help us in large data sets.I am eager to get off the mark with it. Will we be building the index fr

Re: [HACKERS] Fractal tree indexing

On 13.02.2013 18:43, Andrew Dunstan wrote: On 02/13/2013 11:20 AM, Tom Lane wrote: Heikki Linnakangas writes: The basic idea of a fractal tree index is to attach a buffer to every non-leaf page. On insertion, instead of descending all the way down to the correct leaf page, the new tuple is pu

Re: [HACKERS] Fractal tree indexing

On 13.02.2013 18:20, Tom Lane wrote: Heikki Linnakangas writes: The basic idea of a fractal tree index is to attach a buffer to every non-leaf page. On insertion, instead of descending all the way down to the correct leaf page, the new tuple is put on the buffer at the root page. When that buff

Re: [HACKERS] Fractal tree indexing

On 02/13/2013 11:20 AM, Tom Lane wrote: Heikki Linnakangas writes: The basic idea of a fractal tree index is to attach a buffer to every non-leaf page. On insertion, instead of descending all the way down to the correct leaf page, the new tuple is put on the buffer at the root page. When that

Re: [HACKERS] Fractal tree indexing

Heikki Linnakangas writes: > The basic idea of a fractal tree index is to attach a buffer to every > non-leaf page. On insertion, instead of descending all the way down to > the correct leaf page, the new tuple is put on the buffer at the root > page. When that buffer fills up, all the tuples i

Re: [HACKERS] Fractal tree indexing

Sent from my iPad . > > That makes no sense. I don't see any way to implement this in an opclass, and > it wouldn't make sense to re-implement this for every opclass anyway. > > The basic idea of a fractal tree index is to attach a buffer to every > non-leaf page. On insertion, instead of des

Re: [HACKERS] Fractal tree indexing

On 13.02.2013 17:49, Atri Sharma wrote: On 13-Feb-2013, at 20:30, Tom Lane wrote: First explain why you couldn't build it as an opclass for gist or spgist ... That needs thinking about a bit.I was confused about the current indexes because they all build on BTrees.But, building an opclass w

Re: [HACKERS] Fractal tree indexing

Sent from my iPad On 13-Feb-2013, at 20:30, Tom Lane wrote: > > First explain why you couldn't build it as an opclass for gist or > spgist ... > > That needs thinking about a bit.I was confused about the current indexes because they all build on BTrees.But, building an opclass

Re: [HACKERS] Fractal tree indexing

Atri Sharma writes: > Do you think building a new index in postgres with fractal trees as > the basis would serve the purpose? or is there something else we > should think of? First explain why you couldn't build it as an opclass for gist or spgist ... regards, tom lane

Re: [HACKERS] Fractal tree indexing

On 02/13/2013 10:43 PM, Andrew Dunstan wrote: > > On 02/13/2013 09:13 AM, Atri Sharma wrote: >> >> Sent from my iPad >> >> On 13-Feb-2013, at 19:31, Simon Riggs wrote: >> . >>> I think its a good idea, the best idea even, but we still have no idea >>> what the requirements are without a clear case

Re: [HACKERS] Fractal tree indexing

> > > If they are patented as Alexander says upthread, then surely the idea is dead > in the water. > > True, I think so too. But,the generic WAL seems an awesome idea and I would love to help. Atri -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to

Re: [HACKERS] Fractal tree indexing

On 02/13/2013 09:13 AM, Atri Sharma wrote: Sent from my iPad On 13-Feb-2013, at 19:31, Simon Riggs wrote: . I think its a good idea, the best idea even, but we still have no idea what the requirements are without a clear case for an external index. It could easily turn out that we invent a p

Re: [HACKERS] Fractal tree indexing

Sent from my iPad On 13-Feb-2013, at 19:31, Simon Riggs wrote: . > > I think its a good idea, the best idea even, but we still have no idea > what the requirements are without a clear case for an external index. > It could easily turn out that we invent a plausible API that's not > actually of

Re: [HACKERS] Fractal tree indexing

On 13 February 2013 13:35, Heikki Linnakangas wrote: > You could have a generic WAL record that applies changes to multiple pages > atomically. I think its a good idea, the best idea even, but we still have no idea what the requirements are without a clear case for an external index. It could ea

Re: [HACKERS] Fractal tree indexing

Sent from my iPad On 13-Feb-2013, at 19:05, Heikki Linnakangas wrote: > On 13.02.2013 15:31, Alexander Korotkov wrote: >> On Wed, Feb 13, 2013 at 4:51 PM, Greg Stark wrote: >> >>> Heikki was talking about a generic WAL record type that would just >>> store a binary delta between the version

Re: [HACKERS] Fractal tree indexing

On 13.02.2013 15:31, Alexander Korotkov wrote: On Wed, Feb 13, 2013 at 4:51 PM, Greg Stark wrote: Heikki was talking about a generic WAL record type that would just store a binary delta between the version of the block when it was locked and when it was unlocked. That would handle any extensio

Re: [HACKERS] Fractal tree indexing

On Wed, Feb 13, 2013 at 4:51 PM, Greg Stark wrote: > Heikki was talking about a generic WAL record type that would just > store a binary delta between the version of the block when it was > locked and when it was unlocked. That would handle any extension > cleanly as far as data modification goes

Re: [HACKERS] Fractal tree indexing

Sent from my iPad On 13-Feb-2013, at 18:21, Greg Stark wrote > > > Heikki was talking about a generic WAL record type that would just > store a binary delta between the version of the block when it was > locked and when it was unlocked. That would handle any extension > cleanly as far as data

Re: [HACKERS] Fractal tree indexing

On Wed, Feb 13, 2013 at 10:19 AM, Atri Sharma wrote: >> 2) Tokutek can't provide full-fledged fractal tree indexes as PostgreSQL >> extension because lack of WAL extensibility. >> We could think about WAL extensibility which would help other applications >> as well. >> > > Sounds nice. WAL extensi

Re: [HACKERS] Fractal tree indexing

Wed: > > I remember we have already discussed fractal trees privately. Short > conclusions are so: > 1) Fractal tree indexes are patented. It is distributed as commercial > extension to MySQL. So we can't include it into PostgreSQL core. > 2) Tokutek can't provide full-fledged fractal tree indexes

Re: [HACKERS] Fractal tree indexing

On Wed, Feb 13, 2013 at 1:38 PM, Heikki Linnakangas wrote: > On 13.02.2013 11:01, Atri Sharma wrote: > >> Hi all, >> >> Just a curiosity I couldnt control. I was recently reading about >> Fractal tree indexing >> (http://www.tokutek.com/2012/**12/fractal-tree-indexing-**overview/

Re: [HACKERS] Fractal tree indexing

On Wed, Feb 13, 2013 at 3:08 PM, Heikki Linnakangas wrote: > On 13.02.2013 11:01, Atri Sharma wrote: >> >> Hi all, >> >> Just a curiosity I couldnt control. I was recently reading about >> Fractal tree indexing >> (http://www.tokutek.com/2012/12/fractal-tree-indexing-overview/) and >> how TokuDB e

Re: [HACKERS] Fractal tree indexing

On 13.02.2013 11:01, Atri Sharma wrote: Hi all, Just a curiosity I couldnt control. I was recently reading about Fractal tree indexing (http://www.tokutek.com/2012/12/fractal-tree-indexing-overview/) and how TokuDB engine for MySQL is really working nicely with big data. Hmm, sounds very simil