| From: | Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie> |
|---|---|
| To: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
| Cc: | Tomas Vondra <tomas(at)vondra(dot)me>, 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>, Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)gmail(dot)com>, Konstantin Knizhnik <knizhnik(at)garret(dot)ru>, Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: index prefetching |
| Date: | 2025-07-16 14:27:25 |
| Message-ID: | CAH2-Wzn4780s8mo51TsL9RrgbPci+OVSOV=xSGNzBEPfnjn0Gg@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, Jul 16, 2025 at 10:25 AM Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> wrote:
> This imo isn't something worth optimizing for - if you use an io_method that
> actually can execute IO asynchronously this issue does not exist, as the start
> of the IO will already have populated the buffer entry (without BM_VALID set,
> of course). Thus we won't start another IO for that block.
Even if it was worth optimizing for, it'd probably still be too far
down the list of problems to be worth discussing right now.
--
Peter Geoghegan
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Peter Geoghegan | 2025-07-16 14:29:36 | Re: index prefetching |
| Previous Message | Andres Freund | 2025-07-16 14:25:06 | Re: index prefetching |