Hi,
On Wed, Mar 11, 2026 at 3:53 PM Nazir Bilal Yavuz <byavuz81@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> On Tue, 10 Mar 2026 at 16:23, Xuneng Zhou <xunengzhou@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > Another code path that showed significant performance improvement is
> > pgstatindex [1]. I've incorporated the test into the script too. Here
> > are the results from my testing:
> >
> > method=worker io-workers=12
> > pgstatindex_large base= 233.8ms patch= 54.1ms 4.32x
> > ( 76.8%) (reads=27460→1757, io_time=213.94→6.31ms)
> >
> > method=io_uring
> > pgstatindex_large base= 224.2ms patch= 56.4ms 3.98x
> > ( 74.9%) (reads=27460→1757, io_time=204.41→4.88ms)
>
> I didn't run the benchmark yet but here is a small suggestion for the
> pgstatindex patch:
>
> + p.current_blocknum = BTREE_METAPAGE + 1;
> + p.last_exclusive = nblocks;
>
> for (blkno = 1; blkno < nblocks; blkno++)
>
> ...
>
> + p.current_blocknum = HASH_METAPAGE + 1;
> + p.last_exclusive = nblocks;
>
> for (blkno = 1; blkno < nblocks; blkno++)
>
> Could you move 'BTREE_METAPAGE + 1' and 'HASH_METAPAGE + 1' into
> variables and then set p.current_blocknum and blkno using those
> variables? p.current_blocknum and blkno should have the same initial
> values, this change makes code less error prone and easier to read in
> my opinion.
>
> Other than the comment above, LGTM.
>
Thanks! That makes sense to me. Please see the patch I’ll post later.
--
Best,
Xuneng
