public inbox for [email protected]
help / color / mirror / Atom feedFrom: Heikki Linnakangas <[email protected]>
To: Ashutosh Bapat <[email protected]>
To: Tomas Vondra <[email protected]>
To: [email protected]
Cc: Masahiko Sawada <[email protected]>
Cc: Lukas Fittl <[email protected]>
Cc: PostgreSQL Hackers <[email protected]>
Cc: Paul A Jungwirth <[email protected]>
Cc: Khoa Nguyen <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: pg_buffercache: Add per-relation summary stats
Date: Tue, 7 Apr 2026 16:07:45 +0300
Message-ID: <[email protected]> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAExHW5sMsaz1j+hrdhyo-DJp7JCgJx87=q2iJfOc_9mwYWyvmw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAP53Pkx0=ph0vG_M20yVAoK11yGSTZP=53-rZt36OCP4hBPaDQ@mail.gmail.com>
<CAD21AoCKz0t06-qOOm_7kgMn=Niu0yYB3R5jhOY0oVb=5AWytA@mail.gmail.com>
<CAExHW5uqQuPNEjj2ondemCYdtFHExm=jvw-4naPn7gdMmkhrgw@mail.gmail.com>
<CAP53PkyK65PM-Ws7ctj5-eKqVxHo5FzoWKW7=XPq5Jc1qZCJNg@mail.gmail.com>
<CAD21AoCzv5q89VDZ=Ot1wWguBO0MGdCc0-NXN83-Jg57uiJN1Q@mail.gmail.com>
<CAExHW5tynt3Vmmhvvk929Ljfz6jTaJWWoRDthhV=e13GvYRSqQ@mail.gmail.com>
<[email protected]>
<CAExHW5sMsaz1j+hrdhyo-DJp7JCgJx87=q2iJfOc_9mwYWyvmw@mail.gmail.com>
On 28/03/2026 06:18, Ashutosh Bapat wrote:
> Parallely myself and Palak Chaturvedi developed a quick patch to
> modernise pg_buffercache_pages() and use tuplestore so that it doesn't
> have to rely on NBuffers being the same between start of the scan,
> when memory allocated, when the scan ends - a condition possible with
> resizing buffer cache. It seems to improve the timings by about 10-30%
> on my laptop for 128MB buffercache size. Without this patch the time
> taken to execute Lukas's query varies between 10-15ms on my laptop.
> With this patch it varies between 8-9ms. So the timing is more stable
> as a side effect. It's not a 10x improvement that we are looking for
> but it looks like a step in the right direction. That improvement
> seems to come purely because we avoid creating a heap tuple. I wonder
> if there are some places up in the execution tree where full
> heaptuples get formed again instead of continuing to use minimal
> tuples or places where we perform some extra actions that are not
> required.
>
> I didn't dig into the history to find out why we didn't modernize
> pg_buffercache_pages(). I don't see any hazard though.
Committed this modernization patch, thanks!
It would be nice to have a proper row-at-a-time mode that would avoid
materializing the result, but collecting all the data in a temporary
array is clearly worse than just putting them to the tuplestore
directly. The only reason I can think of why we'd prefer to use a
temporary array like that is to get a more consistent snapshot of all
the buffers, by keeping the time spent scanning the buffers as short as
possible. But we're not getting a consistent view anyway, it's just a
matter of degree.
I wondered about this in pg_buffercache_pages.c:
> /*
> * To smoothly support upgrades from version 1.0 of this extension
> * transparently handle the (non-)existence of the pinning_backends
> * column. We unfortunately have to get the result type for that... - we
> * can't use the result type determined by the function definition without
> * potentially crashing when somebody uses the old (or even wrong)
> * function definition though.
> */
> if (get_call_result_type(fcinfo, NULL, &expected_tupledesc) != TYPEFUNC_COMPOSITE)
> elog(ERROR, "return type must be a row type");
>
> if (expected_tupledesc->natts < NUM_BUFFERCACHE_PAGES_MIN_ELEM ||
> expected_tupledesc->natts > NUM_BUFFERCACHE_PAGES_ELEM)
> elog(ERROR, "incorrect number of output arguments");
I guess it's still needed, if you have pg_upgraded all the way from 1.0.
To test that, I created this view to match the old 1.0 definition:
CREATE VIEW public.legacy_pg_buffercache AS
SELECT bufferid,
relfilenode,
reltablespace,
reldatabase,
relforknumber,
relblocknumber,
isdirty,
usagecount
FROM public.pg_buffercache_pages() p(bufferid integer, relfilenode
oid, reltablespace oid, reldatabase oid, relforknumber smallint,
relblocknumber bigint, isdirty boolean, usagecount smallint);
"select * from public.legacy_pg_buffercache" still works, so all good.
- Heikki
view thread (27+ messages) latest in thread
reply
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Reply to all the recipients using the --to and --cc options:
reply via email
To: [email protected]
Cc: [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected]
Subject: Re: pg_buffercache: Add per-relation summary stats
In-Reply-To: <[email protected]>
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
This inbox is served by agora; see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox