Re: index prefetching
Peter Geoghegan <pg@bowt.ie>
Commits
GET /api/v1/messages/:b64id/commits
the thread's linked commits as JSON, with link sources.
API reference →
-
aio: io_uring: Trigger async processing for large IOs
- a9ee66881744 19 (unreleased) landed
-
read stream: Split decision about look ahead for AIO and combining
- 8ca147d582a5 19 (unreleased) landed
-
read_stream: Only increase read-ahead distance when waiting for IO
- f63ca3379025 19 (unreleased) landed
-
read_stream: Prevent distance from decaying too quickly
- 6e36930f9aaf 19 (unreleased) landed
-
Reduce ExecSeqScan* code size using pg_assume()
- b227b0bb4e03 19 (unreleased) cited
-
Fix rare bug in read_stream.c's split IO handling.
- b421223172a2 19 (unreleased) cited
-
Fix multiranges to behave more like dependent types.
- 3e8235ba4f9c 17.0 cited
-
Add EXPLAIN (MEMORY) to report planner memory consumption
- 5de890e3610d 17.0 cited
-
Optimize nbtree backward scan boundary cases.
- c9c0589fda0e 17.0 cited
-
Increment xactCompletionCount during subtransaction abort.
- 90c885cdab8b 14.0 cited
-
Add nbtree Valgrind buffer lock checks.
- 4a70f829d86c 14.0 cited
-
Add nbtree high key "continuescan" optimization.
- 29b64d1de7c7 12.0 cited
-
Reduce pinning and buffer content locking for btree scans.
- 2ed5b87f96d4 9.5.0 cited
-
Teach btree to handle ScalarArrayOpExpr quals natively.
- 9e8da0f75731 9.2.0 cited
On Fri, Aug 15, 2025 at 1:23 PM Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de> wrote: > Somewhat random note about I/O waits: > > Unfortunately the I/O wait time we measure often massively *over* estimate the > actual I/O time. If I execute the above query with the patch applied, we > actually barely ever wait for I/O to complete, it's all completed by the time > we have to wait for the I/O. What we are measuring is the CPU cost of > *initiating* the I/O. I do get that. This was really obvious when I temporarily switched the prefetch patch over from using READ_STREAM_DEFAULT to using READ_STREAM_USE_BATCHING (this is probably buggy, but still seems likely to be representative of what's possible with some care). I noticed that that change reduced the reported "shared read" time by 10x -- which had exactly zero impact on query execution time (at least for the queries I looked at). Since, as you say, the backend didn't have to wait for I/O to complete either way. -- Peter Geoghegan