Re: index prefetching

From: Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie>
To: Tomas Vondra <tomas(at)vondra(dot)me>
Cc: Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, 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 02:12:35
Message-ID: CAH2-Wz=ADVbgcDP8UPdiEjA9GCZcpTfOGyPqRLxTy=RNp_6aLQ@mail.gmail.com
Views: Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Thu, Aug 14, 2025 at 7:26 PM Tomas Vondra <tomas(at)vondra(dot)me> wrote:
> Good. I admit I lost track of which the various regressions may affect
> existing plans, and which are specific to the prefetch patch.

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. This isn't
surprising at all; it would be a near-miracle if this kind of
prototype quality code didn't at least have a small regression here
(it's not like we've even started to worry about small fixed costs for
simple selective queries just yet). This will need to be fixed, but
it's fairly far down the priority list right now.

I feel that we're still very much at the stage where it makes sense to
just fix the most prominent performance issue, and then reevaluate.
Repeating that process iteratively. It's quite likely that there are
more performance issues/bugs that we don't yet know about. IMV it
doesn't make sense to closely track individual queries that have only
been moderately regressed.

--
Peter Geoghegan

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Xuneng Zhou 2025-08-15 02:59:29 Re: memory leak in logical WAL sender with pgoutput's cachectx
Previous Message Zhijie Hou (Fujitsu) 2025-08-15 02:10:21 RE: memory leak in logical WAL sender with pgoutput's cachectx