Re: index prefetching

Hi,

On 2026-02-17 22:36:53 +0100, Tomas Vondra wrote:
> On 2/17/26 21:16, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
> > On Tue, Feb 17, 2026 at 2:27 PM Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> wrote:
> >> On 2026-02-17 12:16:23 -0500, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
> >>> On Mon, Feb 16, 2026 at 11:48 AM Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> wrote:
> >>> I agree that the current heuristics (which were invented recently) are
> >>> too conservative. I overfit the heuristics to my current set of
> >>> adversarial queries, as a stopgap measure.
> >>
> >> Are you doing any testing on higher latency storage? I found it to be quite
> >> valuable to use dm_delay to have a disk with reproducible (i.e. not cloud)
> >> higher latency (i.e. not just a local SSD).
> >
> > I sometimes use dm_delay (with the minimum 1ms delay) when testing,
> > but don't do so regularly. Just because it's inconvenient to do so
> > (perhaps not a great reason).
> >
> >> Low latency NVMe can reduce the
> >> penalty of not enough readahead so much that it's hard to spot problems...
> >
> > I'll keep that in mind.
> >
>
> So, what counts as "higher latency" in this context? What delays should
> we consider practical/relevant for testing?

0.5-4ms is the range I've seen in various clouds across their reasonable
storage products (i.e. not spinning disks or other ver bulk oriented things).

Unfortunately dm_delay doesn't support < 1ms delays, but it's still much
better than nothing.

I've been wondering about teaching AIO to delay IOs (by adding a sleep to
workers and linking a IORING_OP_TIMEOUT submission with the actually intended
IO) to allow testing smaller delays.

> > That would make sense. You can already tell when that's happened by
> > comparing the details shown by EXPLAIN ANALYZE against the same query
> > execution on master, but that approach is inconvenient. Automating my
> > microbenchmarks has proven to be important with this project. There's
> > quite a few competing considerations, and it's too easy to improve one
> > query at the cost of regressing another.
> >
>
> What counts as "unconsumed IO"? The IOs the stream already started, but
> then did not consume? That shouldn't be hard, I think.

Yes, the number of IOs that were started but not consumed. Or, even better,
the number of IOs that completed but were not consumed - but that'd be harder
to get right now.

I agree that started-but-not-consumed should be pretty easy.

Greetings,

Andres Freund