| From: | Tomas Vondra <tomas(at)vondra(dot)me> |
|---|---|
| To: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
| Cc: | Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie>, Nazir Bilal Yavuz <byavuz81(at)gmail(dot)com>, Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(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: | 2025-07-23 01:19:20 |
| Message-ID: | 84269faf-d836-46b5-ab15-7ec26e76e8f9@vondra.me |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 7/23/25 02:59, Andres Freund wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On 2025-07-23 02:50:04 +0200, Tomas Vondra wrote:
>> But I don't see why would this have any effect on the prefetch distance,
>> queue depth etc. Or why decreasing INDEX_SCAN_MAX_BATCHES should improve
>> that. I'd have expected exactly the opposite behavior.
>>
>> Could be bug, of course. But it'd be helpful to see the dataset/query.
>
> Pgbench scale 500, with the simpler query from my message.
>
With direct I/O, I guess? I'll take a look tomorrow.
regard
--
Tomas Vondra
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Thomas Munro | 2025-07-23 01:19:58 | Re: index prefetching |
| Previous Message | Tomas Vondra | 2025-07-23 01:17:19 | Re: index prefetching |