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 Fri, Jan 24, 2025 at 10:38 PM Peter Geoghegan <pg@bowt.ie> wrote: > I can reproduce this. However, it should be noted that the regression > completely goes away if I make one small change to your test case: all > I need to do is make sure that the CREATE INDEX happens *before* > inserting any rows into the table. Once I do that, suffix truncation > tends to be quite a bit more effective. This makes all the difference > with your test case, since it encourages the existing heuristics > within _bt_advance_array_keys to do the right thing and stick on the > leaf level. That allows the "skipskip" mechanism to kick in as > expected, which doesn't seem to be happening when the index is built > by CREATE INDEX. I think that I could have done better at explaining myself here. I'll have another go at that: Your test case showed an excessive number of primitive index scans: EXPLAIN ANALYZE showed "Index Searches: 21859", even though the ideal number of index searches is 1, given all these specifics. It would be understandable if a person saw that and concluded that the added overhead/regression comes from descending the index many more times than is truly necessary -- blaming the added overhead that comes from all those extra _bt_search calls is a good guess. But that's not it. Not really. You (Heikki) didn't actually make any claims about _bt_search being too hot during profiling of this test case. You didn't actually see _bt_search show up prominently when you ran "perf". What you actually saw (and actually complained about) was stuff that is called from _bt_readpage, to deal with array maintenance. Even still, I want to avoid making this any more confusing than it needs to be. The nature of the problem needs to be carefully teased apart. There is an important sense in which the issue of excessive primitive index scans *is* related to the regression from wasting cycles on array maintenance, though only indirectly: the heuristics that decide if the skipskip mechanism should be enabled during a _bt_readpage call are indirectly influenced by certain other heuristics, in _bt_advance_array_keys. These other heuristics are the heuristics that determine whether or not we'll start another primitive index scan (all of which are in _bt_advance_array_key, and were added in Postgres 17, and haven't been touched by this patch series). More concretely: if we choose to start another primitive index scan, and make a bad choice (because we land on the very next sibling leaf page when we could gotten to by simply stepping right without calling _bt_first/_bt_search again), then we also won't have an opportunity to apply the skipskip mechanism when on that same sibling leaf page. That's because in practice every leaf page read within _bt_readpage will be the first leaf page of the ongoing primitive index scan with this test case. Being the first leaf page of a primscan supposedly makes a leaf page a bad target for the skipskip optimization, and so we never actually apply the skipskip optimization in practice here. Again, the real problem is simply that we're not applying the skipskip optimization at all -- even though it was specifically written with cases like Heikki's adversarial case in mind, and even though it actually works as designed once it is forced to activate with Heikki's test case. It may also be a bit of a problem that there's 21859 calls to _bt_search instead of just 1, but that's a surprisingly small contributor to the added overhead. (I'll probably fix the problem by avoiding useless primitive index scans in the first place, rather than by changing the heuristics that activate skipskip, which condition the use of skipskip on firstPage=false. But, again, that doesn't mean that the problem is excessive primscan overhead from all of the extra _bt_first/_bt_search calls. The problem is indirect, and so my solution can be indirect, too.) -- Peter Geoghegan