Improve documentation for contrib/bloom.
Michael Paquier, David Johnston, Tom Lane Discussion: <CAB7nPqQB8dcFmY1uodmiJOSZdhBFOx-us-uW6rfYrzhpEiBR2g@mail.gmail.com>
This commit is contained in:
Tom Lane
parent
e7880e5d39
commit
cfd4804b1e
@ -8,43 +8,42 @@
|
|||||||
</indexterm>
|
</indexterm>
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
<para>
|
<para>
|
||||||
<literal>bloom</> is a module that implements an index access method. It comes
|
<literal>bloom</> provides an index access method based on
|
||||||
as an example of custom access methods and generic WAL record usage. But it
|
<ulink url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bloom_filter">Bloom filters</ulink>.
|
||||||
is also useful in itself.
|
|
||||||
</para>
|
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
<sect2>
|
|
||||||
<title>Introduction</title>
|
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
<para>
|
|
||||||
The implementation of a
|
|
||||||
<ulink url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bloom_filter">Bloom filter</ulink>
|
|
||||||
allows fast exclusion of non-candidate tuples via signatures.
|
|
||||||
Since a signature is a lossy representation of all indexed attributes,
|
|
||||||
search results must be rechecked using heap information.
|
|
||||||
The user can specify signature length in bits (default 80, maximum 4096)
|
|
||||||
and the number of bits generated for each index column (default 2,
|
|
||||||
maximum 4095).
|
|
||||||
</para>
|
</para>
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
<para>
|
<para>
|
||||||
This index is useful if a table has many attributes and queries include
|
A Bloom filter is a space-efficient data structure that is used to test
|
||||||
arbitrary combinations of them. A traditional <literal>btree</> index is
|
whether an element is a member of a set. In the case of an index access
|
||||||
faster than a bloom index, but it can require many indexes to support all
|
method, it allows fast exclusion of non-matching tuples via signatures
|
||||||
possible queries where one needs only a single bloom index. A Bloom index
|
whose size is determined at index creation.
|
||||||
supports only equality comparison. Since it's a signature file, and not a
|
</para>
|
||||||
tree, it always must be read fully, but sequentially, so that index search
|
|
||||||
performance is constant and doesn't depend on a query.
|
<para>
|
||||||
|
A signature is a lossy representation of the indexed attribute(s), and as
|
||||||
|
such is prone to reporting false positives; that is, it may be reported
|
||||||
|
that an element is in the set, when it is not. So index search results
|
||||||
|
must always be rechecked using the actual attribute values from the heap
|
||||||
|
entry. Larger signatures reduce the odds of a false positive and thus
|
||||||
|
reduce the number of useless heap visits, but of course also make the index
|
||||||
|
larger and hence slower to scan.
|
||||||
|
</para>
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
<para>
|
||||||
|
This type of index is most useful when a table has many attributes and
|
||||||
|
queries test arbitrary combinations of them. A traditional btree index is
|
||||||
|
faster than a bloom index, but it can require many btree indexes to support
|
||||||
|
all possible queries where one needs only a single bloom index. Note
|
||||||
|
however that bloom indexes only support equality queries, whereas btree
|
||||||
|
indexes can also perform inequality and range searches.
|
||||||
</para>
|
</para>
|
||||||
</sect2>
|
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
<sect2>
|
<sect2>
|
||||||
<title>Parameters</title>
|
<title>Parameters</title>
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
<para>
|
<para>
|
||||||
<literal>bloom</> indexes accept the following parameters in the
|
A <literal>bloom</> index accepts the following parameters in its
|
||||||
<literal>WITH</>
|
<literal>WITH</> clause:
|
||||||
clause.
|
|
||||||
</para>
|
</para>
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
<variablelist>
|
<variablelist>
|
||||||
@ -52,7 +51,8 @@
|
|||||||
<term><literal>length</></term>
|
<term><literal>length</></term>
|
||||||
<listitem>
|
<listitem>
|
||||||
<para>
|
<para>
|
||||||
Length of signature in bits
|
Length of each signature (index entry) in bits. The default
|
||||||
|
is <literal>80</> bits and maximum is <literal>4096</>.
|
||||||
</para>
|
</para>
|
||||||
</listitem>
|
</listitem>
|
||||||
</varlistentry>
|
</varlistentry>
|
||||||
@ -62,7 +62,10 @@
|
|||||||
<term><literal>col1 — col32</></term>
|
<term><literal>col1 — col32</></term>
|
||||||
<listitem>
|
<listitem>
|
||||||
<para>
|
<para>
|
||||||
Number of bits generated for each index column
|
Number of bits generated for each index column. Each parameter's name
|
||||||
|
refers to the number of the index column that it controls. The default
|
||||||
|
is <literal>2</> bits and maximum is <literal>4095</>. Parameters for
|
||||||
|
index columns not actually used are ignored.
|
||||||
</para>
|
</para>
|
||||||
</listitem>
|
</listitem>
|
||||||
</varlistentry>
|
</varlistentry>
|
||||||
@ -73,7 +76,7 @@
|
|||||||
<title>Examples</title>
|
<title>Examples</title>
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
<para>
|
<para>
|
||||||
An example of an index definition is given below.
|
This is an example of creating a bloom index:
|
||||||
</para>
|
</para>
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
<programlisting>
|
<programlisting>
|
||||||
@ -82,92 +85,135 @@ CREATE INDEX bloomidx ON tbloom USING bloom (i1,i2,i3)
|
|||||||
</programlisting>
|
</programlisting>
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
<para>
|
<para>
|
||||||
Here, we created a bloom index with a signature length of 80 bits,
|
The index is created with a signature length of 80 bits, with attributes
|
||||||
and attributes i1 and i2 mapped to 2 bits, and attribute i3 mapped to 4 bits.
|
i1 and i2 mapped to 2 bits, and attribute i3 mapped to 4 bits. We could
|
||||||
|
have omitted the <literal>length</>, <literal>col1</>,
|
||||||
|
and <literal>col2</> specifications since those have the default values.
|
||||||
</para>
|
</para>
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
<para>
|
<para>
|
||||||
Here is a fuller example of index definition and usage:
|
Here is a more complete example of bloom index definition and usage, as
|
||||||
|
well as a comparison with equivalent btree indexes. The bloom index is
|
||||||
|
considerably smaller than the btree index, and can perform better.
|
||||||
</para>
|
</para>
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
<programlisting>
|
<programlisting>
|
||||||
CREATE TABLE tbloom AS
|
=# CREATE TABLE tbloom AS
|
||||||
SELECT
|
SELECT
|
||||||
random()::int as i1,
|
(random() * 1000000)::int as i1,
|
||||||
random()::int as i2,
|
(random() * 1000000)::int as i2,
|
||||||
random()::int as i3,
|
(random() * 1000000)::int as i3,
|
||||||
random()::int as i4,
|
(random() * 1000000)::int as i4,
|
||||||
random()::int as i5,
|
(random() * 1000000)::int as i5,
|
||||||
random()::int as i6,
|
(random() * 1000000)::int as i6
|
||||||
random()::int as i7,
|
|
||||||
random()::int as i8,
|
|
||||||
random()::int as i9,
|
|
||||||
random()::int as i10,
|
|
||||||
random()::int as i11,
|
|
||||||
random()::int as i12,
|
|
||||||
random()::int as i13
|
|
||||||
FROM
|
FROM
|
||||||
generate_series(1,1000);
|
generate_series(1,10000000);
|
||||||
CREATE INDEX bloomidx ON tbloom USING
|
SELECT 10000000
|
||||||
bloom (i1, i2, i3, i4, i5, i6, i7, i8, i9, i10, i11, i12);
|
=# CREATE INDEX bloomidx ON tbloom USING bloom (i1, i2, i3, i4, i5, i6);
|
||||||
SELECT pg_relation_size('bloomidx');
|
CREATE INDEX
|
||||||
CREATE index btree_idx ON tbloom(i1,i2,i3,i4,i5,i6,i7,i8,i9,i10,i11,i12);
|
=# SELECT pg_size_pretty(pg_relation_size('bloomidx'));
|
||||||
SELECT pg_relation_size('btree_idx');
|
pg_size_pretty
|
||||||
|
----------------
|
||||||
|
153 MB
|
||||||
|
(1 row)
|
||||||
|
=# CREATE index btreeidx ON tbloom (i1, i2, i3, i4, i5, i6);
|
||||||
|
CREATE INDEX
|
||||||
|
=# SELECT pg_size_pretty(pg_relation_size('btreeidx'));
|
||||||
|
pg_size_pretty
|
||||||
|
----------------
|
||||||
|
387 MB
|
||||||
|
(1 row)
|
||||||
</programlisting>
|
</programlisting>
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
<para>
|
||||||
|
A sequential scan over this large table takes a long time:
|
||||||
<programlisting>
|
<programlisting>
|
||||||
=# EXPLAIN ANALYZE SELECT * FROM tbloom WHERE i2 = 20 AND i10 = 15;
|
=# EXPLAIN ANALYZE SELECT * FROM tbloom WHERE i2 = 898732 AND i5 = 123451;
|
||||||
QUERY PLAN
|
QUERY PLAN
|
||||||
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
||||||
Bitmap Heap Scan on tbloom (cost=1.50..5.52 rows=1 width=52) (actual time=0.057..0.057 rows=0 loops=1)
|
Seq Scan on tbloom (cost=0.00..213694.08 rows=1 width=24) (actual time=1445.438..1445.438 rows=0 loops=1)
|
||||||
Recheck Cond: ((i2 = 20) AND (i10 = 15))
|
Filter: ((i2 = 898732) AND (i5 = 123451))
|
||||||
-> Bitmap Index Scan on bloomidx (cost=0.00..1.50 rows=1 width=0) (actual time=0.041..0.041 rows=9 loops=1)
|
Rows Removed by Filter: 10000000
|
||||||
Index Cond: ((i2 = 20) AND (i10 = 15))
|
Planning time: 0.177 ms
|
||||||
Total runtime: 0.081 ms
|
Execution time: 1445.473 ms
|
||||||
(5 rows)
|
(5 rows)
|
||||||
</programlisting>
|
</programlisting>
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
<para>
|
|
||||||
Seqscan is slow.
|
|
||||||
</para>
|
</para>
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
<programlisting>
|
|
||||||
=# SET enable_bitmapscan = off;
|
|
||||||
=# SET enable_indexscan = off;
|
|
||||||
=# EXPLAIN ANALYZE SELECT * FROM tbloom WHERE i2 = 20 AND i10 = 15;
|
|
||||||
QUERY PLAN
|
|
||||||
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
|
||||||
Seq Scan on tbloom (cost=0.00..25.00 rows=1 width=52) (actual time=0.162..0.162 rows=0 loops=1)
|
|
||||||
Filter: ((i2 = 20) AND (i10 = 15))
|
|
||||||
Total runtime: 0.181 ms
|
|
||||||
(3 rows)
|
|
||||||
</programlisting>
|
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
<para>
|
<para>
|
||||||
A btree index will be not used for this query.
|
So the planner will usually select an index scan if possible.
|
||||||
|
With a btree index, we get results like this:
|
||||||
|
<programlisting>
|
||||||
|
=# EXPLAIN ANALYZE SELECT * FROM tbloom WHERE i2 = 898732 AND i5 = 123451;
|
||||||
|
QUERY PLAN
|
||||||
|
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
||||||
|
Index Only Scan using btreeidx on tbloom (cost=0.56..298311.96 rows=1 width=24) (actual time=445.709..445.709 rows=0 loops=1)
|
||||||
|
Index Cond: ((i2 = 898732) AND (i5 = 123451))
|
||||||
|
Heap Fetches: 0
|
||||||
|
Planning time: 0.193 ms
|
||||||
|
Execution time: 445.770 ms
|
||||||
|
(5 rows)
|
||||||
|
</programlisting>
|
||||||
</para>
|
</para>
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
<para>
|
||||||
|
Bloom is better than btree in handling this type of search:
|
||||||
<programlisting>
|
<programlisting>
|
||||||
=# DROP INDEX bloomidx;
|
=# EXPLAIN ANALYZE SELECT * FROM tbloom WHERE i2 = 898732 AND i5 = 123451;
|
||||||
=# CREATE INDEX btree_idx ON tbloom(i1, i2, i3, i4, i5, i6, i7, i8, i9, i10, i11, i12);
|
|
||||||
=# EXPLAIN ANALYZE SELECT * FROM tbloom WHERE i2 = 20 AND i10 = 15;
|
|
||||||
QUERY PLAN
|
QUERY PLAN
|
||||||
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
||||||
Seq Scan on tbloom (cost=0.00..25.00 rows=1 width=52) (actual time=0.210..0.210 rows=0 loops=1)
|
Bitmap Heap Scan on tbloom (cost=178435.39..178439.41 rows=1 width=24) (actual time=76.698..76.698 rows=0 loops=1)
|
||||||
Filter: ((i2 = 20) AND (i10 = 15))
|
Recheck Cond: ((i2 = 898732) AND (i5 = 123451))
|
||||||
Total runtime: 0.250 ms
|
Rows Removed by Index Recheck: 2439
|
||||||
(3 rows)
|
Heap Blocks: exact=2408
|
||||||
|
-> Bitmap Index Scan on bloomidx (cost=0.00..178435.39 rows=1 width=0) (actual time=72.455..72.455 rows=2439 loops=1)
|
||||||
|
Index Cond: ((i2 = 898732) AND (i5 = 123451))
|
||||||
|
Planning time: 0.475 ms
|
||||||
|
Execution time: 76.778 ms
|
||||||
|
(8 rows)
|
||||||
</programlisting>
|
</programlisting>
|
||||||
|
Note the relatively large number of false positives: 2439 rows were
|
||||||
|
selected to be visited in the heap, but none actually matched the
|
||||||
|
query. We could reduce that by specifying a larger signature length.
|
||||||
|
In this example, creating the index with <literal>length=200</>
|
||||||
|
reduced the number of false positives to 55; but it doubled the index size
|
||||||
|
(to 306 MB) and ended up being slower for this query (125 ms overall).
|
||||||
|
</para>
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
<para>
|
||||||
|
Now, the main problem with the btree search is that btree is inefficient
|
||||||
|
when the search conditions do not constrain the leading index column(s).
|
||||||
|
A better strategy for btree is to create a separate index on each column.
|
||||||
|
Then the planner will choose something like this:
|
||||||
|
<programlisting>
|
||||||
|
=# EXPLAIN ANALYZE SELECT * FROM tbloom WHERE i2 = 898732 AND i5 = 123451;
|
||||||
|
QUERY PLAN
|
||||||
|
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
||||||
|
Bitmap Heap Scan on tbloom (cost=9.29..13.30 rows=1 width=24) (actual time=0.148..0.148 rows=0 loops=1)
|
||||||
|
Recheck Cond: ((i5 = 123451) AND (i2 = 898732))
|
||||||
|
-> BitmapAnd (cost=9.29..9.29 rows=1 width=0) (actual time=0.145..0.145 rows=0 loops=1)
|
||||||
|
-> Bitmap Index Scan on tbloom_i5_idx (cost=0.00..4.52 rows=11 width=0) (actual time=0.089..0.089 rows=10 loops=1)
|
||||||
|
Index Cond: (i5 = 123451)
|
||||||
|
-> Bitmap Index Scan on tbloom_i2_idx (cost=0.00..4.52 rows=11 width=0) (actual time=0.048..0.048 rows=8 loops=1)
|
||||||
|
Index Cond: (i2 = 898732)
|
||||||
|
Planning time: 2.049 ms
|
||||||
|
Execution time: 0.280 ms
|
||||||
|
(9 rows)
|
||||||
|
</programlisting>
|
||||||
|
Although this query runs much faster than with either of the single
|
||||||
|
indexes, we pay a large penalty in index size. Each of the single-column
|
||||||
|
btree indexes occupies 214 MB, so the total space needed is over 1.2GB,
|
||||||
|
more than 8 times the space used by the bloom index.
|
||||||
|
</para>
|
||||||
</sect2>
|
</sect2>
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
<sect2>
|
<sect2>
|
||||||
<title>Opclass interface</title>
|
<title>Operator Class Interface</title>
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
<para>
|
<para>
|
||||||
The Bloom opclass interface is simple. It requires 1 supporting function:
|
An operator class for bloom indexes requires only a hash function for the
|
||||||
a hash function for the indexing datatype. It provides 1 search operator:
|
indexed datatype and an equality operator for searching. This example
|
||||||
the equality operator. The example below shows <literal>opclass</>
|
shows the opclass definition for the <type>text</> data type:
|
||||||
definition for <literal>text</> datatype.
|
|
||||||
</para>
|
</para>
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
<programlisting>
|
<programlisting>
|
||||||
@ -179,22 +225,21 @@ DEFAULT FOR TYPE text USING bloom AS
|
|||||||
</sect2>
|
</sect2>
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
<sect2>
|
<sect2>
|
||||||
<title>Limitation</title>
|
<title>Limitations</title>
|
||||||
<para>
|
<para>
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
<itemizedlist>
|
<itemizedlist>
|
||||||
<listitem>
|
<listitem>
|
||||||
<para>
|
<para>
|
||||||
For now, only opclasses for <literal>int4</>, <literal>text</> come
|
Only operator classes for <type>int4</> and <type>text</> are
|
||||||
with the module. However, users may define more of them.
|
included with the module.
|
||||||
</para>
|
</para>
|
||||||
</listitem>
|
</listitem>
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
<listitem>
|
<listitem>
|
||||||
<para>
|
<para>
|
||||||
Only the <literal>=</literal> operator is supported for search at the
|
Only the <literal>=</literal> operator is supported for search. But
|
||||||
moment. But it's possible to add support for arrays with contains and
|
it is possible to add support for arrays with union and intersection
|
||||||
intersection operations in the future.
|
operations in the future.
|
||||||
</para>
|
</para>
|
||||||
</listitem>
|
</listitem>
|
||||||
</itemizedlist>
|
</itemizedlist>
|
||||||
|
|||||||
Loading…
x
Reference in New Issue
Block a user