public inbox for [email protected]
help / color / mirror / Atom feedFrom: Tomas Vondra <[email protected]>
To: Melanie Plageman <[email protected]>
Cc: David Rowley <[email protected]>
Cc: [email protected]
Cc: [email protected]
Cc: [email protected]
Cc: [email protected]
Cc: [email protected]
Cc: [email protected]
Cc: [email protected]
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Parallel Bitmap Heap Scan reports per-worker stats in EXPLAIN ANALYZE
Date: Sun, 5 Apr 2026 21:40:48 +0200
Message-ID: <[email protected]> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAAKRu_a_c8HAtJ8Ynz-dU=Jb2PzheW0zWME6A1BB9jQ62DMZBg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <[email protected]>
<CAFiTN-v1yDvU=X+hwfJ+55=sbgDj=_kuvbduEG-F7=BjpWcnuw@mail.gmail.com>
<[email protected]>
<CAA=D8a1ZGWTk0RDH-LyU==RsE-217T29eprS-NBhyj+eLHyRrQ@mail.gmail.com>
<CAAKRu_YjBPfGp85ehY1t9NN=R9pB9k=6rztaeVkAm-OeTqUK4g@mail.gmail.com>
<CAA=D8a1G5CgvdWLd5_VCEc5Sa3rgJftcGfTEvYqG1HnjMBQmpA@mail.gmail.com>
<[email protected]>
<TYWPR01MB10982C38F6BD6BE4D1D5CCC5EB1D62@TYWPR01MB10982.jpnprd01.prod.outlook.com>
<CAApHDvqsTB-zNw_SpcujnYCi6FYN3M16kJn9QX7pHtVq5wP_Lw@mail.gmail.com>
<CAApHDvpAz_wVNXeCEhjyxcXM6yXMhs+wG+3vywDaJptj6w7dRA@mail.gmail.com>
<CAApHDvpS_97TU+jWPc=T83WPp7vJa1dTw3mojEtAVEZOWh9bjQ@mail.gmail.com>
<CAApHDvo+mqzBNW3YX2EnK0P+Y=f=+2VpWXdHF477susd-bk+-A@mail.gmail.com>
<[email protected]>
<CAAKRu_a_c8HAtJ8Ynz-dU=Jb2PzheW0zWME6A1BB9jQ62DMZBg@mail.gmail.com>
On 4/5/26 20:27, Melanie Plageman wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 3, 2026 at 3:20 PM Tomas Vondra <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> I'm working on adding information about prefetching for scans [1], which
>> includes BitmapHeapScan. I realized the instrumentation added by this
>> thread may not be quite right, resulting in missing instrumentation for
>> non-parallel-aware scans in a parallel query.
>>
>> A better description / explanation of the issue is posted here [2]. I've
>> posted a proposed fix in the following message [3], in a patch:
>>
>> v8-0002-Show-Bitmap-Heap-Scan-stats-for-non-parallel-awar.patch
>>
>> I wonder if someone from this thread could review my analysis, and
>> confirm this is not intentional. I don't see it discussed in the thread,
>> so I assume no one noticed this behavior. I'd also appreciate a review
>> of the proposed fix, or suggestions for alternative fixes.
>
> I can't imagine this was intentional.
>
Indeed.
> I reviewed your approach and suggest we aim for even lower impact by
> always allocating the ParallelBitmapHeapState. That means the DSM
> layout won't differ such that pcxt->toc has to point to the
> instrumentation in the parallel-oblivious case and the pstate in the
> parallel-aware case. Attached is a patch that does this.
>
I like this approach - it's much simpler / less invasive. It did not
occur to me to use the parallel_aware in BitmapTableScanSetup.
regards
--
Tomas Vondra
view thread (23+ 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], [email protected], [email protected]
Subject: Re: Parallel Bitmap Heap Scan reports per-worker stats in EXPLAIN ANALYZE
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