Re: Parallel Bitmap Heap Scan reports per-worker stats in EXPLAIN ANALYZE
| От | David Geier |
|---|---|
| Тема | Re: Parallel Bitmap Heap Scan reports per-worker stats in EXPLAIN ANALYZE |
| Дата | |
| Msg-id | 326831c0-df02-435a-8c2c-428d59222a91@gmail.com обсуждение |
| Ответ на | Re: Parallel Bitmap Heap Scan reports per-worker stats in EXPLAIN ANALYZE (Melanie Plageman <melanieplageman@gmail.com>) |
| Список | pgsql-hackers |
Hi Tomas! On 05.04.2026 20:27, Melanie Plageman wrote: > On Fri, Apr 3, 2026 at 3:20 PM Tomas Vondra <tomas@vondra.me> 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 haven't spent a lot of time looking through the code and your patch but I'm wondering why we're not rather missing a ExecBitmapIndexScanInstrumentEstimate(), rather than calling ExecBitmapIndexScanEstimate() also in the !parallel_aware case. All other scans do it this way, so why do it differently for Bitmap Index Scan? >> 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. Agreed. -- David Geier
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: