From: | Claudio Freire <klaussfreire(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Justin Pryzby <pryzby(at)telsasoft(dot)com> |
Cc: | Konstantin Knizhnik <k(dot)knizhnik(at)postgrespro(dot)ru>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Index scan prefetch? |
Date: | 2018-03-26 21:12:47 |
Message-ID: | CAGTBQpYQEOG0xvqw8ZpuzOT0HGd0S6Ospf6O+MxGwNhL0CYj4g@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, Mar 26, 2018 at 4:59 PM, Justin Pryzby <pryzby(at)telsasoft(dot)com> wrote:
>> But now effective_io_concurrency parameter is applicable only for bitmap
> ...
>> Will it be useful to support it also for index scan?
>> Or there are some other ways to address this problem?
>
> Does your case perform well with bitmap heap scan (I mean bitmap scan of the
> single index)? It seems to me that prefetch wouldn't help, as it would just
> incur the same random cost you're already seeing; the solution may be to choose
> another plan(bitmap) with sequential access to enable read-ahead,
>
> Also: Claudio mentioned here that bitmap prefetch can cause the kernel to avoid
> its own readahead, negatively affecting some queries:
> https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/flat/8fb758a1-d7fa-4dcc-fb5b-07a992ae6a32%40gmail(dot)com#20180207054227(dot)GE17521(at)telsasoft(dot)com
>
> What's the pg_stats "correlation" for the table column with index being
> scanned? How many tuples? Would you send explain(analyze,buffers) for the
> problem query, and with SET enable_bitmapscan=off; ?
Also, check out this thread:
http://www.postgresql-archive.org/Prefetch-index-pages-for-B-Tree-index-scans-td5728926.html
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Alvaro Hernandez | 2018-03-26 21:18:45 | Re: Proposal: http2 wire format |
Previous Message | Dean Rasheed | 2018-03-26 21:12:43 | Re: [HACKERS] PATCH: multivariate histograms and MCV lists |