Re: index prefetching

Tomas Vondra <tomas@vondra.me>

From: Tomas Vondra <tomas@vondra.me>
To: Peter Geoghegan <pg@bowt.ie>, Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>
Cc: Thomas Munro <thomas.munro@gmail.com>, Nazir Bilal Yavuz <byavuz81@gmail.com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>, Melanie Plageman <melanieplageman@gmail.com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org>, Georgios <gkokolatos@protonmail.com>, Konstantin Knizhnik <knizhnik@garret.ru>, Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut@gmail.com>
Date: 2025-08-14T00:59:10Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Commits

Same data as JSON: GET /api/v1/messages/:b64id/commits the thread's linked commits as JSON, with link sources. API reference →
  1. aio: io_uring: Trigger async processing for large IOs

  2. read stream: Split decision about look ahead for AIO and combining

  3. read_stream: Only increase read-ahead distance when waiting for IO

  4. read_stream: Prevent distance from decaying too quickly

  5. Reduce ExecSeqScan* code size using pg_assume()

  6. Fix rare bug in read_stream.c's split IO handling.

  7. Fix multiranges to behave more like dependent types.

  8. Add EXPLAIN (MEMORY) to report planner memory consumption

  9. Optimize nbtree backward scan boundary cases.

  10. Increment xactCompletionCount during subtransaction abort.

  11. Add nbtree Valgrind buffer lock checks.

  12. Add nbtree high key "continuescan" optimization.

  13. Reduce pinning and buffer content locking for btree scans.

  14. Teach btree to handle ScalarArrayOpExpr quals natively.


On 8/14/25 01:50, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
> On Wed Aug 13, 2025 at 5:19 PM EDT, Tomas Vondra wrote:
>> I did investigate this, and I don't think there's anything broken in
>> read_stream. It happens because ReadStream has a concept of "ungetting"
>> a block, which can happen after hitting some I/O limits.
>>
>> In that case we "remember" the last block (in read_stream_look_ahead
>> calls read_stream_unget_block), and we return it again. It may seem as
>> if read_stream_get_block() produced the same block twice, but it's
>> really just the block from the last round.
> 
> I instrumented this for myself, and I agree: backwards and forwards scan cases
> are being fed the same block numbers, as expected (it's just that the order is
> precisely backwards, as expected). The only real difference is that the forwards
> scan case seems to be passed InvalidBlockNumber quite a bit more often. You were
> right: I was confused about the read_stream_unget_block thing.
> 
> However, the magnitude of the difference that I see between the forwards and
> backwards scan cases just doesn't pass the smell test -- I stand by that part.
> I was able to confirm this intuition by performing a simple experiment.
> 
> I asked myself a fairly obvious question: if the backwards scan in question
> takes about 2.5x as long, just because each group of TIDs for each index value
> appears in descending order, then what happens if the order is made random?
> Where does that leave the forwards scan case, and where does it leave the
> backwards scan case?
> 
> I first made the order of the table random, except among groups of index tuples
> that have exactly the same value. Those will still point to the same 1 or 2 heap
> blocks in virtually all cases, so we have "heap clustering without any heap
> correlation" in the newly rewritten table.  To set things up this way, I first
> made another index, and then clustered the table using that new index:
> 
> pg@regression:5432 [2476413]=# create index on t (hashint8(a));
> CREATE INDEX
> pg@regression:5432 [2476413]=# cluster t using t_hashint8_idx ;
> CLUSTER
> 
> Next, I reran the queries in the obvious way (same procedure as yesterday,
> though with a very different result):
> 
> pg@regression:5432 [2476413]=# select pg_buffercache_evict_relation('t'); select pg_prewarm('idx');
> ***SNIP***
> pg@regression:5432 [2476413]=# EXPLAIN (ANALYZE ,costs off, timing off) SELECT * FROM t WHERE a BETWEEN 16336 AND 49103 ORDER BY a;
> ┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐
> │                         QUERY PLAN                         │
> ├────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┤
> │ Index Scan using idx on t (actual rows=1048576.00 loops=1) │
> │   Index Cond: ((a >= 16336) AND (a <= 49103))              │
> │   Index Searches: 1                                        │
> │   Buffers: shared hit=6082 read=77813                      │
> │   I/O Timings: shared read=153.672                         │
> │ Planning Time: 0.057 ms                                    │
> │ Execution Time: 402.735 ms                                 │
> └────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘
> (7 rows)
> 
> pg@regression:5432 [2476413]=# select pg_buffercache_evict_relation('t'); select pg_prewarm('idx');
> ***SNIP***
> pg@regression:5432 [2476413]=# EXPLAIN (ANALYZE ,costs off, timing off) SELECT * FROM t WHERE a BETWEEN 16336 AND 49103 ORDER BY a desc;
> ┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐
> │                             QUERY PLAN                              │
> ├─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┤
> │ Index Scan Backward using idx on t (actual rows=1048576.00 loops=1) │
> │   Index Cond: ((a >= 16336) AND (a <= 49103))                       │
> │   Index Searches: 1                                                 │
> │   Buffers: shared hit=6082 read=77813                               │
> │   I/O Timings: shared read=324.305                                  │
> │ Planning Time: 0.071 ms                                             │
> │ Execution Time: 616.268 ms                                          │
> └─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘
> (7 rows)
> 
> Apparently random I/O is twice as fast as sequential I/O in descending order! In
> fact, this test case creates the appearance of random I/O being at least
> slightly faster than sequential I/O for pages read in _ascending_ order!
> 
> Obviously something doesn't add up here.  I'm no closer to explaining what the
> underlying problem is than I was yesterday, but I find it _very_ hard to believe
> that the inconsistency in performance has anything to do with SSD firmware/OS
> implementation details.  It just looks wonky to me.
> 
> Also possibly worth noting: I'm pretty sure that "shared hit=6082" is wrong.
> Though now it's wrong in the same way with both variants.
> 
> Just for context, I'll show what the TIDs for 3 randomly chosen
> adjacent-in-index values look like after CLUSTER runs (in case it was unclear
> what I meant about "heap clustering without any heap correlation" earlier):
> 

Interesting. It's really surprising random I/O beats the sequential.

I investigated this from a different angle, by tracing the I/O request
generated. using perf-trace. And the patterns are massively different.

What I did is roughly this:

1) restart the instance (with direct I/O)

2) perf trace record -m 128M -a -o $(date +%s).trace

3) run the query, pgrep 'io worker'

4) stop the trace

5) extract pread64 events for the I/O workers from the trace


I get these event counts:

Q1 ASC  -  5395
Q1 DESC - 49969
Q2 ASC  - 32804
Q2 DESC - 49958

It's interesting the DESC queries get to do almost exactly the same
number of pread calls.

Anyway, small samples of the trace look like this:

Q1 ASC

   pread64(fd: 7, buf: 0x7f6011b7f000, count: 81920, pos: 475193344)
   pread64(fd: 24, buf: 0x7f6011b95000, count: 131072, pos: 475275264)
   pread64(fd: 7, buf: 0x7f6011bb7000, count: 131072, pos: 475406336)
   pread64(fd: 24, buf: 0x7f6011bd9000, count: 131072, pos: 475537408)
   pread64(fd: 7, buf: 0x7f6011bfb000, count: 81920, pos: 475668480)
   pread64(fd: 24, buf: 0x7f6011c0f000, count: 24576, pos: 475750400)
   pread64(fd: 24, buf: 0x7f6011c15000, count: 24576, pos: 475774976)
   pread64(fd: 24, buf: 0x7f6011c1d000, count: 131072, pos: 475799552)
   pread64(fd: 7, buf: 0x7f6011c3f000, count: 106496, pos: 475930624)
   pread64(fd: 24, buf: 0x7f6011c59000, count: 24576, pos: 476037120)
   pread64(fd: 24, buf: 0x7f6011c61000, count: 131072, pos: 476061696)
   pread64(fd: 7, buf: 0x7f6011c83000, count: 131072, pos: 476192768)
   pread64(fd: 24, buf: 0x7f6011ca3000, count: 24576, pos: 476323840)
   pread64(fd: 24, buf: 0x7f6011ca9000, count: 24576, pos: 476348416)
   pread64(fd: 24, buf: 0x7f6011cb1000, count: 131072, pos: 476372992)
   pread64(fd: 7, buf: 0x7f6011cd1000, count: 57344, pos: 476504064)

Q1 DESC

   pread64(fd: 24, buf: 0x7fa8c1735000, count: 8192, pos: 230883328)
   pread64(fd: 7, buf: 0x7fa8c1737000, count: 8192, pos: 230875136)
   pread64(fd: 6, buf: 0x7fa8c173b000, count: 8192, pos: 230866944)
   pread64(fd: 24, buf: 0x7fa8c173d000, count: 8192, pos: 230858752)
   pread64(fd: 7, buf: 0x7fa8c173f000, count: 8192, pos: 230850560)
   pread64(fd: 6, buf: 0x7fa8c1741000, count: 8192, pos: 230842368)
   pread64(fd: 24, buf: 0x7fa8c1743000, count: 8192, pos: 230834176)
   pread64(fd: 7, buf: 0x7fa8c1745000, count: 8192, pos: 230825984)
   pread64(fd: 24, buf: 0x7fa8c1747000, count: 8192, pos: 230817792)
   pread64(fd: 6, buf: 0x7fa8c1749000, count: 8192, pos: 230809600)
   pread64(fd: 7, buf: 0x7fa8c174b000, count: 8192, pos: 230801408)
   pread64(fd: 24, buf: 0x7fa8c174d000, count: 8192, pos: 230793216)
   pread64(fd: 6, buf: 0x7fa8c174f000, count: 8192, pos: 230785024)
   pread64(fd: 7, buf: 0x7fa8c1751000, count: 8192, pos: 230776832)
   pread64(fd: 24, buf: 0x7fa8c1753000, count: 8192, pos: 230768640)
   pread64(fd: 7, buf: 0x7fa8c1755000, count: 8192, pos: 230760448)
   pread64(fd: 6, buf: 0x7fa8c1757000, count: 8192, pos: 230752256)

Q2 ASC

   pread64(fd: 7, buf: 0x7fb8bbf27000, count: 8192, pos: 258695168)
   pread64(fd: 24, buf: 0x7fb8bbf29000, count: 16384, pos: 258678784)
   pread64(fd: 7, buf: 0x7fb8bbf2d000, count: 8192, pos: 258670592)
   pread64(fd: 24, buf: 0x7fb8bbf2f000, count: 16384, pos: 258654208)
   pread64(fd: 7, buf: 0x7fb8bbf33000, count: 8192, pos: 258646016)
   pread64(fd: 24, buf: 0x7fb8bbf35000, count: 16384, pos: 258629632)
   pread64(fd: 7, buf: 0x7fb8bbf39000, count: 8192, pos: 258621440)
   pread64(fd: 24, buf: 0x7fb8bbf3d000, count: 16384, pos: 258605056)
   pread64(fd: 7, buf: 0x7fb8bbf41000, count: 8192, pos: 258596864)
   pread64(fd: 24, buf: 0x7fb8bbf43000, count: 16384, pos: 258580480)
   pread64(fd: 7, buf: 0x7fb8bbf47000, count: 8192, pos: 258572288)
   pread64(fd: 24, buf: 0x7fb8bbf49000, count: 16384, pos: 258555904)
   pread64(fd: 7, buf: 0x7fb8bbf4d000, count: 8192, pos: 258547712)
   pread64(fd: 24, buf: 0x7fb8bbf4f000, count: 16384, pos: 258531328)
   pread64(fd: 7, buf: 0x7fb8bbf53000, count: 16384, pos: 258514944)
   pread64(fd: 24, buf: 0x7fb8bbf57000, count: 8192, pos: 258506752)
   pread64(fd: 7, buf: 0x7fb8bbf59000, count: 8192, pos: 258498560)
   pread64(fd: 24, buf: 0x7fb8bbf5b000, count: 16384, pos: 258482176)

Q2 DESC

   pread64(fd: 24, buf: 0x7fdcf0451000, count: 8192, pos: 598974464)
   pread64(fd: 7, buf: 0x7fdcf0453000, count: 8192, pos: 598999040)
   pread64(fd: 6, buf: 0x7fdcf0455000, count: 8192, pos: 598990848)
   pread64(fd: 24, buf: 0x7fdcf0459000, count: 8192, pos: 599007232)
   pread64(fd: 7, buf: 0x7fdcf045b000, count: 8192, pos: 599023616)
   pread64(fd: 6, buf: 0x7fdcf045d000, count: 8192, pos: 599015424)
   pread64(fd: 24, buf: 0x7fdcf045f000, count: 8192, pos: 599031808)
   pread64(fd: 7, buf: 0x7fdcf0461000, count: 8192, pos: 599048192)
   pread64(fd: 6, buf: 0x7fdcf0463000, count: 8192, pos: 599040000)
   pread64(fd: 24, buf: 0x7fdcf0465000, count: 8192, pos: 599056384)
   pread64(fd: 7, buf: 0x7fdcf0467000, count: 8192, pos: 599072768)
   pread64(fd: 6, buf: 0x7fdcf0469000, count: 8192, pos: 599064576)
   pread64(fd: 24, buf: 0x7fdcf046b000, count: 8192, pos: 599080960)
   pread64(fd: 7, buf: 0x7fdcf046d000, count: 8192, pos: 599097344)
   pread64(fd: 6, buf: 0x7fdcf046f000, count: 8192, pos: 599089152)
   pread64(fd: 24, buf: 0x7fdcf0471000, count: 8192, pos: 599105536)
   pread64(fd: 7, buf: 0x7fdcf0473000, count: 8192, pos: 599121920)
   pread64(fd: 6, buf: 0x7fdcf0475000, count: 8192, pos: 599113728)


So, Q1 ASC gets to combine the I/O into nice large chunks. But the DESC
queries end up doing a stream of 8K requests. The Q2 ASC gets to do 16KB
reads in about half the cases, but the rest is still 8KB.

FWIW I believe this is what Thomas Munro meant by [1]:

    You'll probably see a flood of uncombined 8KB IOs in the pg_aios
    view while travelling up the heap with cache misses today.

It wasn't quite this obvious in pg_aios, though. I've usually seen only
a single event there, so hard to make conclusion. The trace makes it
pretty obvious, though. We don't combine the I/O, and we also know Linux
in fact does not do any readahead for backwards scans.


regards



[1]
https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CA%2BhUKGKMaZLmNQHaa_DZMw9MJJKGegjrqnTY3KOZB-_nvFa3wQ%40mail.gmail.com

-- 
Tomas Vondra