| From: | Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie> |
|---|---|
| To: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
| Cc: | Tomas Vondra <tomas(at)vondra(dot)me>, 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 20:16:02 |
| Message-ID: | CAH2-WznoqjYCiVq+dA4bUe70O_rR25qiD5UqzgVkT8sjV_BJxw@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, Aug 15, 2025 at 3:45 PM Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> wrote:
> > My shared_buffers is 16GB, with pgbench scale 300.
>
> So there's actually no IO, given that a scale 300 is something like 4.7GB? In
> that case my patch could really not make a difference, neither of the changed
> branches would ever be reached?
This was an error on my part -- sorry.
I think that the problem was that I forgot that I temporarily
increased effective_io_concurrency from 100 to 1,000 while debugging
this issue. Apparently that disproportionately affected the patched
server. Could also have been an issue with a recent change of mine.
--
Peter Geoghegan
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Nathan Bossart | 2025-08-15 20:25:20 | Re: Remove Instruction Synchronization Barrier in spin_delay() for ARM64 architecture |
| Previous Message | Andres Freund | 2025-08-15 20:13:30 | Re: Remove Instruction Synchronization Barrier in spin_delay() for ARM64 architecture |