> We're in crunch mode right now, ahead of feature freeze, which is less
> than 6 weeks away.
BTW, it seems that someone forgot to #include "utils/rel.h" in src/backend/access/transam/xloginsert.c
> Tomas has been working on this project for about 3
> years, and I've been working on it for about 1.
That is why I gave up on contributing a feature that I wanted back in 2022 (that could make some of our queries dozens of times faster queries). Before going for it I tried something easier staying away from critical things like IO, contention, replication and submitting a planner improvement (5479), and while I waited I decided to look for high impact features. That is how I ended up in this thread. So even if I am inconvenient you can look at my presence here as a compliment!
> Long digressions about
> the asymptotic complexity of priority queues add less than zero value.
Sorry for that, for some readers that could not be obvious. Let me know if you think there is something where I can add greater than or equal zero value.
On Sun, Feb 22, 2026 at 7:28 PM Peter Geoghegan <
pg@bowt.ie> wrote:
On Sun, Feb 22, 2026 at 11:23 AM Alexandre Felipe
<o.alexandre.felipe@gmail.com> wrote:
> DISTANCE CONTROL
>
> I tested different strategies to increase distance. 2*d, 2*d+1, d+2, d+4, and so on. In my head, what would make sense is d + io_combine_limi, but in the end the 2*d gives the best results across different patterns, e.g. (h{200}m{200}) that seems to be a more reasonable pattern, as previous scans would have loaded in blocks. But these are fundamentally the same, as I posted about this a markov model, and the limit will be something like max_distance * sigmoid(h * (p - p0)), what changes is the transient when we go in and out of a cached region.
I don't understand. Why, in general, would a Markov model be useful
for determining prefetch distance?
> LIMITING PREFETCH
>
> To avoid prefetch waste with a limit node wouldn't it make sense to send from the executor an estimate of how many rows will be required.
There's a patch that does that. Have you looked at the patch series at all?
> I/O REORDERING
>
> I did an experiment reordering the heap accesses, following a zig-zag pattern
There's no question that reordering heap accesses is an interesting
direction to eventually take this infrastructure in. I've experimented
with that myself. But this is the worst possible time to be increasing
the scope of the patch for an uncertain benefit.
We're in crunch mode right now, ahead of feature freeze, which is less
than 6 weeks away. Tomas has been working on this project for about 3
years, and I've been working on it for about 1. Long digressions about
the asymptotic complexity of priority queues add less than zero value.
--
Peter Geoghegan
