Re: Using read stream in autoprewarm

Hi,

Newer reviewer here, trying to understand more about the read stream API.

On Tuesday, November 26th, 2024 at 11:07 AM, Nazir Bilal Yavuz <byavuz81(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:

> Any feedback would be appreciated.

I've executed the same test of 5 databases with each of them having 1 table of
3GB of size and I've got very similar results.

I've also tested using a single database with 4 tables with ~60GB of size and
the results compared with master was more closer but still an improvement. Note
that I've also increased the default shared_buffers to 7GB to see how it works
with large buffer pools.
- patched: 5.4259 s
- master: 5.53186 s

Not to much to say about the code, I'm currently learning more about the read
stream API and Postgresql hacking itself. Just some minor points and questions
about the patches.

v2-0002-Count-free-buffers-at-the-start-of-the-autoprewar.patch
--- a/src/backend/storage/buffer/freelist.c
+/*
+ * get_number_of_free_buffers -- a lockless way to get the number of free
+ * buffers in buffer pool.
+ *
+ * Note that result continuosly changes as free buffers are moved out by other
+ * operations.
+ */
+int
+get_number_of_free_buffers(void)

typo on continuosly -> continuously

v2-0001-Use-read-stream-in-autoprewarm.patch
+ bool *rs_have_free_buffer = per_buffer_data;
+
+
+ *rs_have_free_buffer = true;
+

Not sure if I understand why this variable is needed, it seems that it is only
written and never read? Just as comparison, the block_range_read_stream_cb
callback used on pg_prewarm seems to not use the per_buffer_data parameter.

--
Matheus Alcantara
EDB: https://www.enterprisedb.com