| From: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
|---|---|
| To: | Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie>, Tomas Vondra <tomas(at)vondra(dot)me> |
| Cc: | Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)gmail(dot)com>, Nazir Bilal Yavuz <byavuz81(at)gmail(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Melanie Plageman <melanieplageman(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>, Georgios <gkokolatos(at)protonmail(dot)com>, Konstantin Knizhnik <knizhnik(at)garret(dot)ru>, Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: index prefetching |
| Date: | 2025-08-15 19:28:01 |
| Message-ID: | 76E3F022-3F9E-42C4-8AFF-1786CB2855FA@anarazel.de |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Hi,
On August 15, 2025 3:25:50 PM EDT, Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie> wrote:
>On Thu, Aug 14, 2025 at 10:12 PM Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie> wrote:
>> As far as I know, we only have the following unambiguous performance
>> regressions (that clearly need to be fixed):
>>
>> 1. This issue.
>>
>> 2. There's about a 3% loss of throughput on pgbench SELECT.
>
>I did a quick pgbench SELECT benchmark again with Andres' patch, just
>to see if that has been impacted. Now the regression there is much
>larger; it goes from a ~3% regression to a ~14% regression.
>
>I'm not worried about it. Andres' "not waiting for already-in-progress
>IO" patch was clearly just a prototype. Just thought it was worth
>noting here.
Are you confident in that? Because the patch should be extremely cheap in that case. What precisely were you testing?
Andres
--
Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Peter Geoghegan | 2025-08-15 19:31:47 | Re: index prefetching |
| Previous Message | Peter Geoghegan | 2025-08-15 19:25:50 | Re: index prefetching |