On 8/29/25 01:27, Andres Freund wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On 2025-08-29 01:00:58 +0200, Tomas Vondra wrote:
>> I'm not sure how to determine what concurrency it "wants". All I know is
>> that for "warm" runs [1], the basic index prefetch patch uses distance
>> ~2.0 on average, and is ~2x slower than master. And with the patches the
>> distance is ~270, and it's 30% slower than master. (IIRC there's about
>> 30% misses, so 270 is fairly high. Can't check now, the machine is
>> running other tests.)
>
> There got to be something wrong here, I don't see a reason why at any
> meaningful distance it'd be slower.
>
> What set of patches do I need to repro the issue?
>
Use this branch:
https://github.com/tvondra/postgres/commits/index-prefetch-master/
and then Thomas' patch that increases the prefetch distance:
https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CA%2BhUKGL2PhFyDoqrHefqasOnaXhSg48t1phs3VM8BAdrZqKZkw%40mail.gmail.com
(IIRC there's a trivial conflict in read_stream_reset.).
> And what are the complete set of pieces to load the data?
> https://postgr.es/m/293a4735-79a4-499c-9a36-870ee9286281%40vondra.me
> has the query, but afaict not enough information to infer init.sql
>
Yeah, I forgot to include that piece, sorry. Here's an init.sql, that
loads the table, it also has the query.
>
>> Not sure about wait events, but I don't think any backends are doing
>> sychnronous I/O. There's only that one query running, and it's using AIO
>> (except for the index, which is still read synchronously).
>>
>> Likewise, I don't think there's insufficient number of workers. I've
>> tried with 3 and 12 workers, and there's virtually no difference between
>> those. IIRC when watching "top", I've never seen more than 1 or maybe 2
>> workers active (using CPU).
>
> That doesn't say much - if the they are doing IO, they're not on CPU...
>
True. But one worker did show up in top, using a fair amount of CPU, so
why wouldn't the others (if they process the same stream)?
regards
--
Tomas Vondra
