On 2025-03-25 10:27, torikoshia wrote:
On 2025-03-22 20:23, Jelte Fennema-Nio wrote:
On Wed, 19 Mar 2025 at 14:15, torikoshia
wrote:
BTW based on your discussion, I thought this patch could not be
merged
anytime soon. Does that align with your understanding?
Yeah, that aligns with my under
On 2025-03-22 20:23, Jelte Fennema-Nio wrote:
On Wed, 19 Mar 2025 at 14:15, torikoshia
wrote:
BTW based on your discussion, I thought this patch could not be merged
anytime soon. Does that align with your understanding?
Yeah, that aligns with my understanding. I don't think it's realistic
to
On Wed, 19 Mar 2025 at 14:15, torikoshia wrote:
> BTW based on your discussion, I thought this patch could not be merged
> anytime soon. Does that align with your understanding?
Yeah, that aligns with my understanding. I don't think it's realistic
to get this merged before the code freeze, but I
Hi,
On 2025-03-18 08:52, Jelte Fennema-Nio wrote:
On Mon, 10 Feb 2025 at 14:23, torikoshia
wrote:
Thanks for reviewing the patch and comments!
Fixed issues you pointed out and attached v2 patch.
This patch needs a rebase, because it's failing to compile currently.
So I marked this as "Waitin
On Mon, 10 Feb 2025 at 14:23, torikoshia wrote:
> Thanks for reviewing the patch and comments!
> Fixed issues you pointed out and attached v2 patch.
This patch needs a rebase, because it's failing to compile currently.
So I marked this as "Waiting on Author" in the commitfest app.
Hi,
On 2025-02-11 18:45:13 +0100, Jelte Fennema-Nio wrote:
> On Tue, 11 Feb 2025 at 17:19, Andres Freund wrote:
> > Yes, at least initially:
>
> Ah, then I understand your point of view much better. Still I think we
> could easily frame it as: If you enable io_uring, you also get these
> additio
On Tue, 11 Feb 2025 at 17:19, Andres Freund wrote:
> Yes, at least initially:
Ah, then I understand your point of view much better. Still I think we
could easily frame it as: If you enable io_uring, you also get these
additional fancy stats.
Also afaict the items don't have to mean that
> 1) it
Hi,
On 2025-02-11 17:00:36 +0100, Jelte Fennema-Nio wrote:
> On Tue, 11 Feb 2025 at 16:36, Andres Freund wrote:
> > Shrug. It means that it'll not work in what I hope will be the default
> > mechanism before long. I just can't get excited for that. In all likelihood
> > it'll result in bug repor
On Tue, 11 Feb 2025 at 16:36, Andres Freund wrote:
> Shrug. It means that it'll not work in what I hope will be the default
> mechanism before long. I just can't get excited for that. In all likelihood
> it'll result in bug reports that I'll then be on the hook to fix.
My assumption was that io_
Hi,
On 2025-02-11 09:59:43 +0100, Jelte Fennema-Nio wrote:
> On Tue, 11 Feb 2025 at 00:53, Andres Freund wrote:
> > > The thing is that you'd often get completely misleading stats. Some of
> > > the IO
> > > will still be done by the backend itself, so there will be a non-zero
> > > value. But i
On Tue, 11 Feb 2025 at 00:53, Andres Freund wrote:
> > I mostly meant worker based AIO, yes. I haven't checked how accurately these
> > are kept for io_uring. I would hope they are...
>
> It does look like it is tracked.
nice!
> > The thing is that you'd often get completely misleading stats. So
Hi,
On 2025-02-10 18:30:56 -0500, Andres Freund wrote:
> On 2025-02-10 23:52:17 +0100, Jelte Fennema-Nio wrote:
> > On Mon, 10 Feb 2025 at 14:31, Andres Freund wrote:
> > > But this will also not work with AIO w/ Buffered IO. Which we hope to use
> > > much
> > > more commonly.
> >
> > To be cle
Hi,
On 2025-02-10 23:52:17 +0100, Jelte Fennema-Nio wrote:
> On Mon, 10 Feb 2025 at 14:31, Andres Freund wrote:
> > But this will also not work with AIO w/ Buffered IO. Which we hope to use
> > much
> > more commonly.
>
> To be clear, here you mean worker based AIO right? Because it would
> wor
On Mon, 10 Feb 2025 at 14:31, Andres Freund wrote:
> I think it'll always be a subset of use. It doesn't make sense to use DIO for
> a small databases or untuned databases. Or a system that's deliberately
> overcommmitted.
Thanks, that's useful context.
> But this will also not work with AIO w/
Hi,
On 2025-02-09 21:06:02 +0100, Jelte Fennema-Nio wrote:
> On Sun, 9 Feb 2025 at 19:05, Tom Lane wrote:
> >
> > Andres Freund writes:
> > > I'm somewhat against this patch, as it's fairly fundamentally incompatible
> > > with AIO. There's no real way to get information in this manner if the IO
On 2025-02-10 05:06, Jelte Fennema-Nio wrote:
Thanks for reviewing the patch and comments!
Fixed issues you pointed out and attached v2 patch.
On Sun, 9 Feb 2025 at 19:05, Tom Lane wrote:
Andres Freund writes:
> I'm somewhat against this patch, as it's fairly fundamentally incompatible
> wi
On Sun, 9 Feb 2025 at 19:05, Tom Lane wrote:
>
> Andres Freund writes:
> > I'm somewhat against this patch, as it's fairly fundamentally incompatible
> > with AIO. There's no real way to get information in this manner if the IO
> > isn't executed synchronously in process context...
Hmm, I had no
Andres Freund writes:
> I'm somewhat against this patch, as it's fairly fundamentally incompatible
> with AIO. There's no real way to get information in this manner if the IO
> isn't executed synchronously in process context...
Even without looking ahead to AIO, there's bgwriter, walwriter, and
c
Hi,
On 2025-02-09 12:51:40 +0100, Jelte Fennema-Nio wrote:
> On Sat, 8 Feb 2025 at 14:54, Jelte Fennema-Nio wrote:
> > I'll play around with it a bit next week.
>
> Okay, I played around with it and couldn't find any issues. I marked
> the patch as "ready for committer" in the commitfest app[1],
On Sat, 8 Feb 2025 at 14:54, Jelte Fennema-Nio wrote:
> I'll play around with it a bit next week.
Okay, I played around with it and couldn't find any issues. I marked
the patch as "ready for committer" in the commitfest app[1], given
that all feedback in my previous email was very minor.
[1]: ht
On Mon, 27 Jan 2025 at 10:05, torikoshia wrote:
> Therefore, I believe it would be reasonable to report the raw values
> as-is, as they should still be useful for understanding storage I/O
> activity.
Sounds reasonable.
Below some feedback on the patch. It's all really minor. The patch
looks gre
Hi,
On Tue, Jan 7, 2025 at 5:09 AM Jelte Fennema-Nio
wrote:
The core functionality works well in my opinion. I think it makes sense
to spend the effort to move this from PoC quality to something
committable. Below some of the things that are necessary to do that
after an initial pass over the
On Mon, Jan 6, 2025 at 6:59 PM Julien Rouhaud wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Mon, Jan 06, 2025 at 06:49:06PM +0900, torikoshia wrote:
> >
> > > **However, I think the general direction has merit**: Changing this
> > > patch to
> > > use `ru_inblock`/`ru_oublock` gives very useful insights. `ru_inblock`
> >
On Mon Jan 6, 2025 at 10:49 AM CET, torikoshia wrote:
On Tue, Dec 31, 2024 at 7:57 AM Jelte Fennema-Nio
Updated the PoC patch to calculate them by KB:
=# EXPLAIN (ANALYZE, STORAGEIO) SELECT * FROM pgbench_accounts;
QUERY PLAN
Hi,
On Mon, Jan 06, 2025 at 06:49:06PM +0900, torikoshia wrote:
>
> > **However, I think the general direction has merit**: Changing this
> > patch to
> > use `ru_inblock`/`ru_oublock` gives very useful insights. `ru_inblock`
> > is 0 when everything is in page cache, and it is very high when stuf
On Tue, Dec 31, 2024 at 1:39 AM Tom Lane wrote:
Bruce Momjian writes:
I certainly would love to see storage I/O numbers as distinct from
kernel read I/O numbers.
Me too, but I think it is 100% wishful thinking to imagine that
page fault counts match up with that. Maybe there are filesyste
On Mon Dec 30, 2024 at 5:39 PM CET, Tom Lane wrote:
Bruce Momjian writes:
I certainly would love to see storage I/O numbers as distinct from
kernel read I/O numbers.
Me too, but I think it is 100% wishful thinking to imagine that
page fault counts match up with that.
Okay I played around
Bruce Momjian writes:
> On Fri, Dec 27, 2024 at 03:15:40PM +0100, Jelte Fennema-Nio wrote:
>> On Tue Dec 24, 2024 at 4:52 PM CET, Tom Lane wrote:
>>> torikoshia writes:
I have attached a PoC patch that modifies EXPLAIN to include page
fault information during both the planning and execu
On Fri, Dec 27, 2024 at 03:15:40PM +0100, Jelte Fennema-Nio wrote:
> On Tue Dec 24, 2024 at 4:52 PM CET, Tom Lane wrote:
> > torikoshia writes:
> > > I have attached a PoC patch that modifies EXPLAIN to include page
> > > fault information during both the planning and execution phases of a
> > > q
On Fri, 27 Dec 2024 15:15:40 +0100
"Jelte Fennema-Nio" wrote:
> On Tue Dec 24, 2024 at 4:52 PM CET, Tom Lane wrote:
> > torikoshia writes:
> >> I have attached a PoC patch that modifies EXPLAIN to include page
> >> fault information during both the planning and execution phases of
> >> a query
On Tue Dec 24, 2024 at 4:52 PM CET, Tom Lane wrote:
torikoshia writes:
I have attached a PoC patch that modifies EXPLAIN to include page fault
information during both the planning and execution phases of a query.
Surely these numbers would be too unstable to be worth anything.
What makes y
On Thu, 26 Dec 2024 13:15:59 +0900
torikoshia wrote:
> On 2024-12-25 00:52, Tom Lane wrote:
> > torikoshia writes:
> >> I have attached a PoC patch that modifies EXPLAIN to include page
> >> fault
> >> information during both the planning and execution phases of a
> >> query.
> >
> > Surel
On 2024-12-25 00:52, Tom Lane wrote:
torikoshia writes:
I have attached a PoC patch that modifies EXPLAIN to include page
fault
information during both the planning and execution phases of a query.
Surely these numbers would be too unstable to be worth anything.
Thanks for your comment!
H
torikoshia writes:
> I have attached a PoC patch that modifies EXPLAIN to include page fault
> information during both the planning and execution phases of a query.
Surely these numbers would be too unstable to be worth anything.
regards, tom lane
Hi,
When reading the output of EXPLAIN (ANALYZE) to diagnose slow queries
for our customers, I often want to know how many page faults occurred,
especially major page faults, which involve disk access.
Currently, the BUFFERS option in EXPLAIN provides information on whether
a page was found
35 matches
Mail list logo
