Horton

Re: index prefetching

Gregory Smith <gregsmithpgsql@gmail.com>

View thread
From: Gregory Smith <gregsmithpgsql@gmail.com>
To: Tomas Vondra <tomas.vondra@enterprisedb.com>
Cc: PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org>, Georgios <gkokolatos@protonmail.com>
Date: 2023-06-09T21:19:47Z
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 Thu, Jun 8, 2023 at 11:40 AM Tomas Vondra <tomas.vondra@enterprisedb.com>
wrote:

> We already do prefetching for bitmap index scans, where the bitmap heap
> scan prefetches future pages based on effective_io_concurrency. I'm not
> sure why exactly was prefetching implemented only for bitmap scans


At the point Greg Stark was hacking on this, the underlying OS async I/O
features were tricky to fix into PG's I/O model, and both of us did much
review work just to find working common ground that PG could plug into.
Linux POSIX advisories were completely different from Solaris's async
model, the other OS used for validation that the feature worked, with the
hope being that designing against two APIs would be better than just
focusing on Linux.  Since that foundation was all so brittle and limited,
scope was limited to just the heap scan, since it seemed to have the best
return on time invested given the parts of async I/O that did and didn't
scale as expected.

As I remember it, the idea was to get the basic feature out the door and
gather feedback about things like whether the effective_io_concurrency knob
worked as expected before moving onto other prefetching.  Then that got
lost in filesystem upheaval land, with so much drama around Solaris/ZFS and
Oracle's btrfs work.  I think it's just that no one ever got back to it.

I have all the workloads that I use for testing automated into
pgbench-tools now, and this change would be easy to fit into testing on
them as I'm very heavy on block I/O tests.  To get PG to reach full read
speed on newer storage I've had to do some strange tests, like doing index
range scans that touch 25+ pages.  Here's that one as a pgbench script:

\set range 67 * (:multiplier + 1)
\set limit 100000 * :scale
\set limit :limit - :range
\set aid random(1, :limit)
SELECT aid,abalance FROM pgbench_accounts WHERE aid >= :aid ORDER BY aid
LIMIT :range;

And then you use '-Dmultiplier=10' or such to crank it up.  Database 4X
RAM, multiplier=25 with 16 clients is my starting point on it when I want
to saturate storage.  Anything that lets me bring those numbers down would
be valuable.

--
Greg Smith  greg.smith@crunchydata.com
Director of Open Source Strategy