From: | Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
Cc: | Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Accounting of zero-filled buffers in EXPLAIN (BUFFERS) |
Date: | 2018-04-30 03:37:35 |
Message-ID: | CAEepm=1FUM0qgHP823wsF50dneX_OOPCkN9fGz5xpBK+MtB1aw@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, Apr 30, 2018 at 3:13 PM, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> wrote:
> On 2018-04-30 14:59:31 +1200, Thomas Munro wrote:
>> In EXPLAIN (BUFFERS), there are two kinds of cache misses that show up
>> as "reads" when in fact they are not reads at all:
>>
>> 1. Relation extension, which in fact writes a zero-filled block.
>> 2. The RBM_ZERO_* modes, which provoke neither read nor write.
>
> Just for understanding: 2) can never happen for buffers showing up in
> EXPLAIN, right?
>
> I'm not saying you shouldn't fix the accounting...
Maybe the hash AM can reach that in _hash_getinitbuf() while adding
overflow pages to bucket chains? Admittedly case 2 is obscure and
rare if not unreachable and probably no one would care too much about
that in practice (whereas case 1 can be seen by simply inserting stuff
into a new empty table). Other patches I'm working on for later
proposal do it more often (think accessing known-empty pages in a kind
of preallocated extent), and it occurred to me that it's clearly a bug
on principle, hence this patch.
--
Thomas Munro
http://www.enterprisedb.com
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2018-04-30 04:22:34 | Intermittent ECPG test failures on Windows buildfarm machines |
Previous Message | Andres Freund | 2018-04-30 03:13:18 | Re: Accounting of zero-filled buffers in EXPLAIN (BUFFERS) |