Re: Adding skip scan (including MDAM style range skip scan) to nbtree

From: Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie>
To: Aleksander Alekseev <aleksander(at)timescale(dot)com>
Cc: PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Adding skip scan (including MDAM style range skip scan) to nbtree
Date: 2024-07-02 16:55:59
Message-ID: CAH2-WznFUHMnkHXb6SEC2KgHoQmnpJQWp2PibPbsP4o5bH8y0A@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Tue, Jul 2, 2024 at 12:25 PM Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)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

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Fujii Masao 2024-07-02 17:07:16 Re: Add new COPY option REJECT_LIMIT
Previous Message Tom Lane 2024-07-02 16:55:53 Re: What is a typical precision of gettimeofday()?