Re: Adding skip scan (including MDAM style range skip scan) to nbtree
Peter Geoghegan <pg@bowt.ie>
Commits
GET /api/v1/messages/:b64id/commits
the thread's linked commits as JSON, with link sources.
API reference →
-
nbtree: Always set skipScan flag on rescan.
- 454c046094ab 19 (unreleased) landed
- bee763aea13f 18.0 landed
-
meson: Build numeric.c with -ftree-vectorize.
- 9016fa7e3bcd 19 (unreleased) cited
-
Fix "variable not found in subplan target lists" in semijoin de-duplication.
- b8a1bdc458e3 19 (unreleased) cited
-
Revert "nbtree: Remove useless row compare arg."
- dd2ce3792754 18.0 landed
-
nbtree: Remove useless row compare arg.
- 54c6ea8c81db 18.0 cited
-
Prevent premature nbtree array advancement.
- 5f4d98d4f371 18.0 landed
-
nbtree: tighten up array recheck rules.
- 7e25c9363a82 18.0 landed
-
Avoid treating nonrequired nbtree keys as required.
- 0f08df406822 18.0 landed
-
Adjust overstrong nbtree skip array assertion.
- 9d924dbb3710 18.0 landed
-
Make NULL tuple values always advance skip arrays.
- b75fedcab791 18.0 cited
-
Avoid extra index searches through preprocessing.
- b3f1a13f22f9 18.0 landed
-
Improve nbtree skip scan primitive scan scheduling.
- 21a152b37f36 18.0 landed
-
Further optimize nbtree search scan key comparisons.
- 8a510275dd6b 18.0 landed
-
Add nbtree skip scan optimization.
- 92fe23d93aa3 18.0 landed
-
Improve nbtree array primitive scan scheduling.
- 9a2e2a285a14 18.0 landed
-
nbtree: Make BTMaxItemSize into object-like macro.
- 426ea611171d 18.0 landed
-
Show index search count in EXPLAIN ANALYZE, take 2.
- 0fbceae841cb 18.0 landed
-
Make parallel nbtree index scans use an LWLock.
- 67fc4c9fd7fa 18.0 landed
-
Show index search count in EXPLAIN ANALYZE.
- 5ead85fbc811 18.0 landed
-
Avoid nbtree parallel scan currPos confusion.
- b5ee4e52026b 18.0 cited
-
nbtree: Remove useless 'strat' local variable.
- b6558e4f837e 18.0 landed
-
Normalize nbtree truncated high key array behavior.
- 79fa7b3b1a44 18.0 landed
-
Refactor handling of nbtree array redundancies.
- b524974106ac 18.0 landed
-
Fix nbtree pgstats accounting with parallel scans.
- c00c54a9ac1e 18.0 landed
- fb4f5e58af97 17.0 landed
-
Avoid parallel nbtree index scan hangs with SAOPs.
- d8adfc18bebf 18.0 landed
- a24bffc021d9 17.0 landed
-
Show Parallel Bitmap Heap Scan worker stats in EXPLAIN ANALYZE
- 5a1e6df3b84c 18.0 cited
-
Enhance nbtree ScalarArrayOp execution.
- 5bf748b86bc6 17.0 cited
-
Skip checking of scan keys required for directional scan in B-tree
- e0b1ee17dc3a 17.0 cited
-
Instead of using a numberOfRequiredKeys count to distinguish required
- 7ccaf13a06b8 8.2.0 cited
On Wed, Mar 12, 2025 at 4:28 PM Alena Rybakina <a.rybakina@postgrespro.ru> wrote: > Thank you for the explanation! > > Now I see why these changes were made. > > After your additional explanations, everything really became clear and I > fully agree with the current code regarding this part. Cool. > However I did not see an explanation to the commit regarding this place, > as well as a comment next to the assert and the parallel_aware check and > why BitmapIndexScanState was added in the ExecParallelReInitializeDSM. I added BitmapIndexScanState to the switch statement in ExecParallelReInitializeDSM because it is in the category of planstates that never need their shared memory reinitialized -- that's just how we represent such a plan state there. I think that this is supposed to serve as a kind of documentation, since it doesn't really affect how things behave. That is, it wouldn't actually affect anything if I had forgotten to add BitmapIndexScanState to the ExecParallelReInitializeDSM switch statement "case" that represents that it is in this "plan state category": the switch ends with catch-all "default: break;". > In my opinion, there is not enough additional explanation about this in > the form of comments, although I think that it has already been > explained here enough for someone who will look at this code. What can be done to improve the situation? For example, would adding a comment next to the new assertions recently added to ExecIndexScanReInitializeDSM and ExecIndexOnlyScanReInitializeDSM be an improvement? And if so, what would the comment say? -- Peter Geoghegan