Re: EXPLAIN: showing ReadStream / prefetch stats
Tomas Vondra <tomas@vondra.me>
From: Tomas Vondra <tomas@vondra.me>
To: Lukas Fittl <lukas@fittl.com>
Cc: Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>,
Melanie Plageman <melanieplageman@gmail.com>,
PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org>
Date: 2026-05-04T17:16:37Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers
On 5/4/26 17:22, Lukas Fittl wrote: > On Mon, May 4, 2026 at 6:51 AM Tomas Vondra <tomas@vondra.me> wrote: >> >> While looking for something in the EXPLAIN docs, I realized the docs >> added by 681daed93169 are considerably less detailed that for the other >> EXPLAIN options. It only said "information on I/O" provided by the scan >> node, while the other options go into much more details. >> >> The attached patch improves that a little bit - it lists the counters >> added to explain. I'll consider going into a little bit more detail, >> e.g. regarding what "capacity" or "waits" means. > > I think that makes sense to add. > > Two thoughts: > > (1) I think going into a bit more detail makes sense to actually > explain how to interpret the values (or maybe even what action to > take?) - I think the BUFFERS documentation is probably a good style to > follow in terms of how it lists out the individual values and their > meaning. > Agreed. > (2) What do you think of also clarifying when this information is > tracked? I gave that feedback in an earlier patch in this thread, but > I still feel like the "scan nodes providing such information" is very > vague and not helpful for users trying to understand when this is > shown (e.g. the fact that this currently has no visibility on index > I/O, and won't tell you anything about writes being performed to clear > out dirty buffers/etc). > > Maybe: > > "Include information on I/O performed by scan nodes providing such > information, currently visible for read I/O issued by Bitmap Heap > Scans, Sequential Scans and TID Scans." > > Of course that's a bit prone to get stale, but I think the clarity on > what it does/doesn't do would be worth the effort to maintain it. > Yeah, I'll think about it. At some point I didn't like mentioning exact scan types, because who knows what custom scans could do etc. But maybe that's OK. regards -- Tomas Vondra