Re: [PATCH v1] parallel pg_restore: avoid disk seeks when jumping short distance forward - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Dimitrios Apostolou
Subject Re: [PATCH v1] parallel pg_restore: avoid disk seeks when jumping short distance forward
Date
Msg-id 5B5099C6-A424-4F6C-886F-EF545C7FA7E8@gmx.net
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: [PATCH v1] parallel pg_restore: avoid disk seeks when jumping short distance forward  (Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart@gmail.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
Thanks. This is the first value I tried and it works well. In the archive I have all blocks seem to be between 8 and
20KBso the jump forward before the change never even got close to 1MB. Could it be bigger in an uncompressed archive?
Orin a future pg_dump that raises the block size? I don't really know, so it is difficult to test such scenario but it
madesense to guard against these cases too. 

I chose 1MB by basically doing a very crude calculation in my mind: when would it be worth seeking forward instead of
reading?On very slow drives 60MB/s sequential and 60 IOPS for random reads is a possible speed. In that worst case it
wouldbe better to seek() forward for lengths of over 1MB.  

On 1 April 2025 22:04:00 CEST, Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Tue, Apr 01, 2025 at 09:33:32PM +0200, Dimitrios Apostolou wrote:
>> It didn't break any test, but I also don't see any difference, the
>> performance boost is noticeable only when restoring a huge archive that is
>> missing offsets.
>
>This seems generally reasonable to me, but how did you decide on 1MB as the
>threshold?  Have you tested other values?  Could the best threshold vary
>based on the workload and hardware?
>



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Matthias van de Meent
Date:
Subject: Re: Adding skip scan (including MDAM style range skip scan) to nbtree
Next
From: Andres Freund
Date:
Subject: Re: AIO v2.5