From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Dimitrios Apostolou <jimis@gmx.net>
cc: Chao Li <li.evan.chao@gmail.com>,
        Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart@gmail.com>,
        Thomas Munro <thomas.munro@gmail.com>,
        pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4] parallel pg_restore: avoid disk seeks when jumping
 short distance forward
In-reply-to: <375562.1760995276@sss.pgh.pa.us>
References: <2edb7a57-b225-3b23-a680-62ba90658fec@gmx.net>
 <a7344d8f-927c-1f97-6cc0-ac630deb98c4@gmx.net>
 <c0e531f9-accc-3a93-e9e6-2cec1471f9e9@gmx.net>
 <1282067.1744651649@sss.pgh.pa.us>
 <c6bb93c1-4042-743c-096c-27c5e7c73347@gmx.net>
 <f7a23708-c336-c189-f155-4b3197bf6ea0@gmx.net> <aEioDuePEBRnfJYk@nathan>
 <5ed51587-5a24-4d79-e36e-927620d0e3a2@gmx.net> <aEygf8AchBk04gOA@nathan>
 <f99e9774-da49-60f0-20e0-b97d9f12a04e@gmx.net>
 <72d2c81b-a0fe-3d99-9dd4-0d771e6e673e@gmx.net>
 <1po8os49-r63o-2923-p37n-12698o1qn7p0@tzk.arg>
 <3515357.1760128017@sss.pgh.pa.us> <3698234.1760149336@sss.pgh.pa.us>
 <3686.1760232320@sss.pgh.pa.us>
 <CBF70398-279C-4BA7-9FA1-2879A49F4EC9@gmail.com>
 <717335.1760389672@sss.pgh.pa.us> <1306492.1760556110@sss.pgh.pa.us>
 <1518975.1760634070@sss.pgh.pa.us>
 <9opr64ps-625r-667n-q19o-op35rs414n59@tzk.arg>
 <375562.1760995276@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Comments: In-reply-to Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
	message dated "Mon, 20 Oct 2025 17:21:16 -0400"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-ID: <381755.1760998513.1@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Date: Mon, 20 Oct 2025 18:15:13 -0400
Message-ID: <381756.1760998513@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Archived-At: 
 <https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/381756.1760998513%40sss.pgh.pa.us>
Precedence: bulk

I wrote:
> So for me, the proposed patch actually makes it 2X slower.

I went and tried this same test case on a 2024 Mac Mini M4 Pro.
Cutting to the chase:

HEAD:

$ time pg_restore -f /dev/null -t zedtable bench10000.dump

real    1m26.525s
user    0m0.364s
sys     0m6.806s

Patched:

$ time pg_restore -f /dev/null -t zedtable bench10000.dump

real    0m15.419s
user    0m0.279s
sys     0m8.224s

So on this hardware it *does* win (although maybe things would
be different for a parallel restore).  The patched pg_restore
takes just about the same amount of time as "cat", and iostat
shows both of them reaching a bit more than 6GB/s read speed.

My feeling at this point is that we'd probably drop the block
size test as irrelevant, and instead simply ignore ctx->hasSeek
within this loop if we think we're on a platform where that's
the right thing.  But how do we figure that out?

Not sure where we go from here, but clearly a bunch of research
is going to be needed to decide whether this is committable.

			regards, tom lane