From: | Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie> |
---|---|
To: | Dmitry Dolgov <9erthalion6(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Masahiro(dot)Ikeda(at)nttdata(dot)com, pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org, Masao(dot)Fujii(at)nttdata(dot)com |
Subject: | Re: Adding skip scan (including MDAM style range skip scan) to nbtree |
Date: | 2024-08-03 22:21:43 |
Message-ID: | CAH2-WznwP8kiUOhvJgw+4ap1-X=LX92WrpyjFwy4zHebA1Sy+Q@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Sat, Aug 3, 2024 at 6:14 PM Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie> wrote:
> Displaying the number of primitive scans would already be useful for
> index scans with SAOPs, even without this patch. The same general
> concepts (estimated vs. actual primitive index scans) already exist,
> as of Postgres 17. That's really nothing new.
We actually expose this via instrumentation, in a certain sense. This
is documented by a "Note":
https://www.postgresql.org/docs/devel/monitoring-stats.html#MONITORING-PG-STAT-ALL-INDEXES-VIEW
That is, we already say "Each internal primitive index scan increments
pg_stat_all_indexes.idx_scan, so it's possible for the count of index
scans to significantly exceed the total number of index scan executor
node executions". So, as I said in the last email, advertising the
difference between # of primitive index scans and # of index scan
executor node executions in EXPLAIN ANALYZE is already a good idea.
--
Peter Geoghegan
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tatsuo Ishii | 2024-08-04 01:48:07 | subquery and sub-SELECT |
Previous Message | Peter Geoghegan | 2024-08-03 22:14:18 | Re: Adding skip scan (including MDAM style range skip scan) to nbtree |