Re: Adding skip scan (including MDAM style range skip scan) to nbtree - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Peter Geoghegan
Subject Re: Adding skip scan (including MDAM style range skip scan) to nbtree
Date
Msg-id CAH2-WznFUHMnkHXb6SEC2KgHoQmnpJQWp2PibPbsP4o5bH8y0A@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Adding skip scan (including MDAM style range skip scan) to nbtree  (Peter Geoghegan <pg@bowt.ie>)
Responses Re: Adding skip scan (including MDAM style range skip scan) to nbtree
List pgsql-hackers
On Tue, Jul 2, 2024 at 12:25 PM Peter Geoghegan <pg@bowt.ie> wrote:
> Attached v2 fixes this bug. The problem was that the skip support
> function used by the "char" opclass assumed signed char comparisons,
> even though the authoritative B-Tree comparator (support function 1)
> uses signed comparisons (via uint8 casting). A simple oversight.

Although v2 gives correct answers to the queries, the scan itself
performs an excessive amount of leaf page accesses. In short, it
behaves just like a full index scan would, even though we should
expect it to skip over significant runs of the index. So that's
another bug.

It looks like the queries you posted have a kind of adversarial
quality to them, as if they were designed to confuse the
implementation. Was it intentional? Did you take them from an existing
test suite somewhere?

The custom instrumentation I use to debug these issues shows:

_bt_readpage: 🍀  1981 with 175 offsets/tuples (leftsib 4032, rightsib 3991) ➡️
 _bt_readpage first: (c, n)=(b, 998982285), TID='(1236,173)',
0x7f1464fe9fc0, from non-pivot offnum 2 started page
 _bt_readpage final:  , (nil), continuescan high key check did not set
so->currPos.moreRight=false ➡️  🟢
 _bt_readpage stats: currPos.firstItem: 0, currPos.lastItem: 173,
nmatching: 174 ✅
_bt_readpage: 🍀  3991 with 175 offsets/tuples (leftsib 1981, rightsib 9) ➡️
 _bt_readpage first: (c, n)=(b, 999474517), TID='(4210,9)',
0x7f1464febfc8, from non-pivot offnum 2 started page
 _bt_readpage final:  , (nil), continuescan high key check did not set
so->currPos.moreRight=false ➡️  🟢
 _bt_readpage stats: currPos.firstItem: 0, currPos.lastItem: 173,
nmatching: 174 ✅
_bt_readpage: 🍀  9 with 229 offsets/tuples (leftsib 3991, rightsib 3104) ➡️
 _bt_readpage first: (c, n)=(c, 1606), TID='(882,68)', 0x7f1464fedfc0,
from non-pivot offnum 2 started page
 _bt_readpage final:  , (nil), continuescan high key check did not set
so->currPos.moreRight=false ➡️  🟢
 _bt_readpage stats: currPos.firstItem: 0, currPos.lastItem: -1, nmatching: 0 ❌
_bt_readpage: 🍀  3104 with 258 offsets/tuples (leftsib 9, rightsib 1685) ➡️
 _bt_readpage first: (c, n)=(c, 706836), TID='(3213,4)',
0x7f1464feffc0, from non-pivot offnum 2 started page
 _bt_readpage final:  , (nil), continuescan high key check did not set
so->currPos.moreRight=false ➡️  🟢
 _bt_readpage stats: currPos.firstItem: 0, currPos.lastItem: -1, nmatching: 0 ❌
*** SNIP, many more "nmatching: 0" pages appear after these two ***

The final _bt_advance_array_keys call for leaf page 3991 should be
scheduling a new primitive index scan (i.e. skipping), but that never
happens. Not entirely sure why that is, but it probably has something
to do with _bt_advance_array_keys failing to hit the
"has_required_opposite_direction_only" path for determining if another
primitive scan is required. You're using an inequality required in the
opposite-to-scan-direction here, so that path is likely to be
relevant.

--
Peter Geoghegan



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: What is a typical precision of gettimeofday()?
Next
From: Fujii Masao
Date:
Subject: Re: Add new COPY option REJECT_LIMIT