| 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 19:25:50 |
| Message-ID: | CAH2-WzkHToCEW5Ka3dW+PbFPp2ZTQCsawDpx+-tHuOfBmqOY5Q@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
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.
--
Peter Geoghegan
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andres Freund | 2025-08-15 19:28:01 | Re: index prefetching |
| Previous Message | Masahiko Sawada | 2025-08-15 19:03:41 | Re: Add CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS in pg_buffercache_pages while scanning the buffers |