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: <7B29E5B2-94DC-48ED-A1F3-247BCE5A2329@gmx.net>
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>
 <7B29E5B2-94DC-48ED-A1F3-247BCE5A2329@gmx.net>
Comments: In-reply-to Dimitrios Apostolou <jimis@gmx.net>
	message dated "Tue, 21 Oct 2025 00:09:46 +0200"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-ID: <382527.1760999007.1@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Date: Mon, 20 Oct 2025 18:23:27 -0400
Message-ID: <382528.1760999007@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Archived-At: 
 <https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/382528.1760999007%40sss.pgh.pa.us>
Precedence: bulk

Dimitrios Apostolou <jimis@gmx.net> writes:
> Thanks for the extensive testing! Did you see the same syscall pattern i=
n strace output, as I did?

Yes, I did look at that, and it's the same as you saw:
HEAD repeats

        read(4k)
        lseek(~128k forward)

which is to be expected if we have to read data block headers
that are ~128K apart; while patched repeats

         read(4k)
         read(~128k)

which is a bit odd in itself, why isn't it merging the reads better?

> I was using an HDD,

Ah.  Your original message mentioned NVMe so I was assuming you
were also looking at solid-state drives.  I can imagine that
seeking is more painful on HDDs ...

			regards, tom lane