Re: index prefetching
Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>
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
Hi,
On 2025-08-13 14:15:37 +0200, Tomas Vondra wrote:
> In fact, I believe this is about io_method. I initially didn't see the
> difference you described, and then I realized I set io_method=sync to
> make it easier to track the block access. And if I change io_method to
> worker, I get different stats, that also change between runs.
>
> With "sync" I always get this (after a restart):
>
> Buffers: shared hit=7435 read=52801
>
> while with "worker" I get this:
>
> Buffers: shared hit=4879 read=52801
> Buffers: shared hit=5151 read=52801
> Buffers: shared hit=4978 read=52801
>
> So not only it changes run to tun, it also does not add up to 60236.
This is reproducible on master? If so, how?
> I vaguely recall I ran into this some time ago during AIO benchmarking,
> and IIRC it's due to how StartReadBuffersImpl() may behave differently
> depending on I/O started earlier. It only calls PinBufferForBlock() in
> some cases, and PinBufferForBlock() is what updates the hits.
Hm, I don't immediately see an issue there. The only case we don't call
PinBufferForBlock() is if we already have pinned the relevant buffer in a
prior call to StartReadBuffersImpl().
If this happens only with the prefetching patch applied, is is possible that
what happens here is that we occasionally re-request buffers that already in
the process of being read in? That would only happen with a read stream and
io_method != sync (since with sync we won't read ahead). If we have to start
reading in a buffer that's already undergoing IO we wait for the IO to
complete and count that access as a hit:
/*
* Check if we can start IO on the first to-be-read buffer.
*
* If an I/O is already in progress in another backend, we want to wait
* for the outcome: either done, or something went wrong and we will
* retry.
*/
if (!ReadBuffersCanStartIO(buffers[nblocks_done], false))
{
...
/*
* Report and track this as a 'hit' for this backend, even though it
* must have started out as a miss in PinBufferForBlock(). The other
* backend will track this as a 'read'.
*/
...
if (persistence == RELPERSISTENCE_TEMP)
pgBufferUsage.local_blks_hit += 1;
else
pgBufferUsage.shared_blks_hit += 1;
...
Greetings,
Andres Freund