Re: Using read_stream in index vacuum

Hi!

On Fri, 25 Oct 2024 at 17:01, Andrey M. Borodin <x4mmm(at)yandex-team(dot)ru> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On 25 Oct 2024, at 00:55, Rahila Syed <rahilasyed90(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> >
> > While writing this email, I realized I evicted buffers for the table
> > and not the index. I will perform the test again. However,
> > I would like to know your opinion on whether this looks like
> > a valid test.
>
> Well, yes, kind of, you need drop caches from index. And, perhaps, you can have more indexes. You also can disable autovaccum and just restart postgres instead of iterating through buffer caches.
>
> I've asked Thomas about performance implications and he told me that converting stuff to streamlined API is not expected to have better performance. It's needed to have decent perfromance when DIRECT_IO will be involved.
>
> Thanks!
>
>
> Best regards, Andrey Borodin.
>

I noticed CI failure for this patch. This does not look like a flap.

[0] https://cirrus-ci.com/task/4527545259917312
[1] https://api.cirrus-ci.com/v1/artifact/task/4527545259917312/log/src/test/modules/test_misc/tmp_check/log/regress_log_007_vacuum_btree

--
Best regards,
Kirill Reshke