Обсуждение: Trying out read streams in pgvector (an extension)

Hi,

I was looking around for an exotic index type to try the experience of
streamifying an extension, ie out-of-core code.  I am totally new to
pgvector, but since everyone keeps talking about it, I could not avoid
picking up some basic facts in the pgconf.dev hallway track, and
understood that its scans have some degree of known-order access
predictability, and then also some degree of fuzzy-predictable
order-not-yet-determined access too.  It's also quite random in the
I/O sense.

Here's a toy to streamify the known-order part.  I think for the fuzzy
part that links those parts together, maybe there is some way to guess
when it's a reasonable time to speculatively prefetch the lowest order
stuff in the pairing heap, and then deal with it if you're wrong, but
I didn't try that...

Someone involved in that project mentioned that it's probably not a
great topic to research in practice, because real world users of HNSW
use fully cached ie prewarmed indexes, because the performance is so
bad otherwise.  (Though maybe that argument is a little circular...).
So although this patch clearly speeds up cold HSNW searches to a
degree controlled by effective_io_concurrency, I'll probably look for
something else.  Suggestions for interesting index types to look at
streamifying are very welcome!

Hmm.  If that's really true about HNSW though, then there may still be
an opportunity to do automatic memory prefetching[1].  But then in the
case of index building, "stream" is NULL in this patch anyway.  It
surely must also be possible to find some good places to put
profitable explicit pg_mem_prefetch() calls given the predictability
and the need to get only ~60ns ahead for that usage.  I didn't look
into that because I was trying to prove things about read_stream.c,
not get involved in another project :-D

Here ends my science experiment report, which I'm dropping here just
in case others see useful ideas here.  The main thing I learned about
the read stream API is that it'd be nice to be able to reset the
stream but preserve the distance (something that came up on the
streaming sequential scan thread for a different reason), to deal with
cases where look-ahead opportunities come in bursts but you want a
longer lived stream than I used here.  That is the reason the patch
creates and destroys temporary streams in a loop; doh.  It also
provides an interesting case study for what speculative random
look-ahead support might need to look like.

[1] https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/flat/CA%2BhUKGKNUMnqubrrz8pRBdEM8vHeSCZcNq7iqERmkt6zPtpA3g%40mail.gmail.com

=== setup ====

create extension vector;

create or replace function random_vector(dimensions int)
returns vector language sql
begin atomic;
  select array_agg(random())::vector
    from generate_series(1, dimensions);
end;

create table t (id serial, embedding vector(6));

insert into t (embedding)
select random_vector(6)
  from generate_series(1, 1000000);

set maintenance_work_mem = '2GB';

create index on t using hnsw(embedding vector_l2_ops);

=== test of a hot search, assuming repeated ===

select embedding <-> '[0.5,0.5,0.5,0.5,0.5,0.5]'::vector
  from t
 where embedding <-> '[0.5,0.5,0.5,0.5,0.5,0.5]'::vector < 0.2
 order by 1 limit 20;

=== test of a cold search, assuming empty caches ===

create or replace function test()
returns void
language plpgsql as
$$
declare
  my_vec vector(6) := random_vector(6);
begin
  perform embedding <-> my_vec
     from t
    where embedding <-> my_vec < 0.2
    order by 1 limit 20;
end;
$$;

select test();

(Make sure you remember to set effective_io_concurrency to an
interesting number if you want to generate a lot of overlapping
fadvise calls.)

On 11/06/2024 07:53, Thomas Munro wrote:
> Someone involved in that project mentioned that it's probably not a
> great topic to research in practice, because real world users of HNSW
> use fully cached ie prewarmed indexes, because the performance is so
> bad otherwise.  (Though maybe that argument is a little circular...).

I think that's true in practice for *building* an HNSW index, but faster 
*searching* when the index is not in memory seems quite useful. And of 
course, faster is always better, even if it's only in a non-optimal 
scenario.

> So although this patch clearly speeds up cold HSNW searches to a
> degree controlled by effective_io_concurrency, I'll probably look for
> something else.  Suggestions for interesting index types to look at
> streamifying are very welcome!

GiST and GIN?

> Hmm.  If that's really true about HNSW though, then there may still be
> an opportunity to do automatic memory prefetching[1].  But then in the
> case of index building, "stream" is NULL in this patch anyway.  It
> surely must also be possible to find some good places to put
> profitable explicit pg_mem_prefetch() calls given the predictability
> and the need to get only ~60ns ahead for that usage.  I didn't look
> into that because I was trying to prove things about read_stream.c,
> not get involved in another project :-D
> 
> Here ends my science experiment report, which I'm dropping here just
> in case others see useful ideas here.  The main thing I learned about
> the read stream API is that it'd be nice to be able to reset the
> stream but preserve the distance (something that came up on the
> streaming sequential scan thread for a different reason), to deal with
> cases where look-ahead opportunities come in bursts but you want a
> longer lived stream than I used here.  That is the reason the patch
> creates and destroys temporary streams in a loop; doh.  It also
> provides an interesting case study for what speculative random
> look-ahead support might need to look like.

This reminds me of a prototype I wrote earlier, see 
https://github.com/pgvector/pgvector/pull/386, 1st commit. It 
reorganizes HnswSearchLayer() so that it in iteration, it first collects 
all the neighbors to visit, and then visits them, somewhat similar to 
your patch.

-- 
Heikki Linnakangas
Neon (https://neon.tech)

On 6/11/24 12:53 AM, Thomas Munro wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> I was looking around for an exotic index type to try the experience of
> streamifying an extension, ie out-of-core code.  I am totally new to
> pgvector, but since everyone keeps talking about it, I could not avoid
> picking up some basic facts in the pgconf.dev hallway track, and
> understood that its scans have some degree of known-order access
> predictability, and then also some degree of fuzzy-predictable
> order-not-yet-determined access too.  It's also quite random in the
> I/O sense.

Cool! I happened to be chatting w/Andrew about this yesterday to see if 
there could be some benefits for folks who are running pgvector on PG17.

> Here's a toy to streamify the known-order part.  I think for the fuzzy
> part that links those parts together, maybe there is some way to guess
> when it's a reasonable time to speculatively prefetch the lowest order
> stuff in the pairing heap, and then deal with it if you're wrong, but
> I didn't try that...

I would suggest submitting this at least as a draft PR to the pgvector 
project[1]:

https://github.com/pgvector/pgvector

> Someone involved in that project mentioned that it's probably not a
> great topic to research in practice, because real world users of HNSW
> use fully cached ie prewarmed indexes, because the performance is so
> bad otherwise.

I don't think that was me, at least in those words (and I had noted I'd 
love to chat w/you about this, but we didn't find time). Stating it 
differently, the "ideal" is to keep the indexes in memory, as that leads 
to the best performance, but reality is more complicated. These datasets 
are quite large (e.g. the 1536-dim vector is a 6KB payload, excluding 
what's in the index) and if you're storing the full vector in the index 
(there are now some quantization methods available[4]), you can easily 
double your dataset size, and quickly exceed available memory. So I 
think in the real world, you're more likely to see swapping pages 
between disk and memory. Some of this was addressed in the talk @ 
PGConf.dev[3] (slides here[2]).

>  (Though maybe that argument is a little circular...).
> So although this patch clearly speeds up cold HSNW searches to a
> degree controlled by effective_io_concurrency, I'll probably look for
> something else.  Suggestions for interesting index types to look at
> streamifying are very welcome!

Yup, so this makes sense for HNSW particularly at the higher-level 
pages. But it may make more sense for IVFFlat, given how it clusters 
data. With IVFFlat, you first find your lists/centers, and then you 
determine how you index each vector around the lists. When those lists 
are stored to disk, they're basically sequential. A lot of the struggles 
with IVFFlat is both the long load from disk and ultimately some 
comptuational issues for a larger set of vector comparisons (though if 
you're able to build small, efficient clusters, it can be much faster 
than HNSW!). HNSW behaves more like a (bear with me) typically 
"tree-based" index, where you'll have hot spots at the top, but because 
of the nature of vector search, the lower levels tend to be more random 
in access.

Regardless, the part where this is interesting (at least to me) is that 
a lot of these vectors tend to take up a full page anyway, so anything 
we can do to read them faster from disk will generally get a thumbs up 
from me.

> Hmm.  If that's really true about HNSW though, then there may still be
> an opportunity to do automatic memory prefetching[1].  But then in the
> case of index building, "stream" is NULL in this patch anyway.  It
> surely must also be possible to find some good places to put
> profitable explicit pg_mem_prefetch() calls given the predictability
> and the need to get only ~60ns ahead for that usage.  I didn't look
> into that because I was trying to prove things about read_stream.c,
> not get involved in another project :-D

Well, as alluded to in[2], thinking about how another project uses this 
will certainly help, and anything we can do to continue to speed up 
vector queries helps PostgreSQL ;) Some of the contributions from folks 
who have focused on core have significantly helped pgvector.

> Here ends my science experiment report, which I'm dropping here just
> in case others see useful ideas here.  The main thing I learned about
> the read stream API is that it'd be nice to be able to reset the
> stream but preserve the distance (something that came up on the
> streaming sequential scan thread for a different reason), to deal with
> cases where look-ahead opportunities come in bursts but you want a
> longer lived stream than I used here.  That is the reason the patch
> creates and destroys temporary streams in a loop; doh.  It also
> provides an interesting case study for what speculative random
> look-ahead support might need to look like.

If you're curious, I can fire up some of my more serious benchmarks on 
this to do a before/after to see if there's anything interesting. I have 
a few large datasets (10s of millions) of larger vectors (1536dim => 6KB 
payloads) that could see the net effect here.

> (Make sure you remember to set effective_io_concurrency to an
> interesting number if you want to generate a lot of overlapping
> fadvise calls.)

What would you recommend as an "interesting number?" - particularly 
using the data parameters above.

Thanks,

Jonathan

[1] https://github.com/pgvector/pgvector
[2] 
https://www.pgevents.ca/events/pgconfdev2024/sessions/session/1/slides/42/pgconfdev-2024-vectors.pdf
[3] 

https://www.pgevents.ca/events/pgconfdev2024/schedule/session/1-vectors-how-to-better-support-a-nasty-data-type-in-postgresql/
[4] https://jkatz05.com/post/postgres/pgvector-scalar-binary-quantization/

On Fri, Sep 6, 2024 at 4:28 PM Thomas Munro <thomas.munro@gmail.com> wrote:
> Without this
> patch for PostgreSQL, it reads 1, 2, 4, 7 blocks (= 16 in total)
> before it has to take a break to hop to a new page, and then it start
> again at 1.  Oops.

Erm, correction: 1, 2, 4, 8, 1 (because it runs out due to m == 16 and resets).

There was a mistake in my query, so the macOS speedup column was wrong
(was accidentally comparing Linux number with macOS master, sorry for
the noise).  I also forgot to mention that you don't actually get the
speedup on PostgreSQL 17 on a Mac, because Peter only recently
implemented the needed read-ahead support for macOS in master/18, but
it doesn't get slower.  Here's the corrected table:

              |     linux (xfs)           |  macos (apfs)
 branch | eic |  avg   | speedup | stdev  |  avg   | speedup | stdev
--------+-----+--------+---------+--------+--------+---------+--------
 master |     | 73.959 |     1.0 | 24.168 | 72.290 |     1.0 | 11.851
 stream |   0 | 70.117 |     1.1 | 36.699 | 76.289 |     0.9 | 12.742
 stream |   1 | 57.983 |     1.3 |  5.845 | 79.969 |     0.9 |  8.308
 stream |   2 | 35.629 |     2.1 |  4.088 | 49.198 |     1.5 |  7.686
 stream |   3 | 28.477 |     2.6 |  2.607 | 37.540 |     1.9 |  5.272
 stream |   4 | 26.493 |     2.8 |  3.691 | 33.014 |     2.2 |  4.444
 stream |   5 | 23.711 |     3.1 |  2.435 | 32.622 |     2.2 |  2.270
 stream |   6 | 22.885 |     3.2 |  1.908 | 31.254 |     2.3 |  4.170
 stream |   7 | 21.910 |     3.4 |  2.153 | 33.669 |     2.1 |  4.616
 stream |   8 | 20.741 |     3.6 |  1.594 | 34.182 |     2.1 |  3.819
 stream |   9 | 22.471 |     3.3 |  3.094 | 30.690 |     2.4 |  2.677
 stream |  10 | 19.895 |     3.7 |  1.695 | 32.631 |     2.2 |  4.976
 stream |  11 | 19.447 |     3.8 |  1.647 | 31.163 |     2.3 |  3.351
 stream |  12 | 18.658 |     4.0 |  1.503 | 30.817 |     2.3 |  3.538
 stream |  13 | 18.886 |     3.9 |  0.874 | 29.184 |     2.5 |  4.832
 stream |  14 | 18.667 |     4.0 |  1.692 | 28.783 |     2.5 |  3.459
 stream |  15 | 19.080 |     3.9 |  1.429 | 28.928 |     2.5 |  3.396
 stream |  16 | 18.929 |     3.9 |  3.469 | 29.282 |     2.5 |  2.868

On Fri, Sep 6, 2024 at 4:28 PM Thomas Munro <thomas.munro@gmail.com> wrote:
> Here's a new version with a TODO tidied up.  I also understood that we
> need to tweak the read_stream_reset() function, so that it doesn't
> forget its current readhead distance when it hops between HNSW nodes
> (which is something that comes up in several other potential uses
> cases including another one I am working in in core).  Without this
> patch for PostgreSQL, it reads 1, 2, 4, 7 blocks (= 16 in total)
> before it has to take a break to hop to a new page, and then it start
> again at 1.  Oops.  With this patch, it is less forgetful, and reaches
> the full possible I/O concurrency of 16 (or whatever the minimum of
> HNSW's m parameter and effective_io_concurrency is for you).

I heard that the pgvector project is now trying to do this for real,
and (surprise!) running into this problem.  It causes streamified HNSW
search to regress in performance on some queries when the overheads of
streaming are not outweighed by the (bogusly constrained) gains in
concurrency.  We just don't generate enough concurrency to win.  I
probably should have been more opinionated and just committed a
version of that distance-reset policy change, but I guess at the time
I wrote the above, streaming and AIO were a little too abstract to
attract reviews relating to hypothetical external projects.

We definitely want to fix that for v19, because it also affects the
streamified index scan project and doubtless many other things.  I
wrote about that with patches[1] and will start a new thread soon with
a new collection of rebased heuristics improvements.

But for now, to fix pgvector's woes, I wonder if it might make sense
to call this a bug in v18, and back-patch the tiniest possible change.
Something like what I posted[2] in this thread almost two years ago.
I don't think it really affects any core code: we use
read_stream_reset() only in very minimal ways there (I could
elaborate), and it's quite arguable that the existing policy is wrong
for them too, but we'd need to confirm that and perhaps think about
other extensions that might be using it.

Better ideas?

[1]
https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/flat/CA%2BhUKGL6hCd40Dh1AcFcoiw5zJXK2T1dRKO3oe8RkPExqA5zoQ%40mail.gmail.com#181a22a8be99ff561b7beae44986870c
[2]
https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/flat/CA%2BhUKG%2Bx2BcqWzBC77cN0ewhzMF0kYhC6c4G_T2gJLPbqYQ6Ow%40mail.gmail.com#9aa6012713b473611ae46d8e2032586f

On Tue, Nov 11, 2025 at 4:22 PM Thomas Munro <thomas.munro@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> But for now, to fix pgvector's woes, I wonder if it might make sense
> to call this a bug in v18, and back-patch the tiniest possible change.
> Something like what I posted[2] in this thread almost two years ago.
> I don't think it really affects any core code: we use
> read_stream_reset() only in very minimal ways there (I could
> elaborate), and it's quite arguable that the existing policy is wrong
> for them too, but we'd need to confirm that and perhaps think about
> other extensions that might be using it.

If we are worried about regressing other extensions using
read_stream_reset(), we could make the read stream reset which
preserves the distance a different function in backbranches.

- Melanie

On Wed, Nov 12, 2025 at 11:52 AM Melanie Plageman
<melanieplageman@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 11, 2025 at 4:22 PM Thomas Munro <thomas.munro@gmail.com> wrote:
> > But for now, to fix pgvector's woes, I wonder if it might make sense
> > to call this a bug in v18, and back-patch the tiniest possible change.
> > Something like what I posted[2] in this thread almost two years ago.
> > I don't think it really affects any core code: we use
> > read_stream_reset() only in very minimal ways there (I could
> > elaborate), and it's quite arguable that the existing policy is wrong
> > for them too, but we'd need to confirm that and perhaps think about
> > other extensions that might be using it.
>
> If we are worried about regressing other extensions using
> read_stream_reset(), we could make the read stream reset which
> preserves the distance a different function in backbranches.

Hmm, yeah, interesting idea.  Candidate names might include
read_stream_restart() and read_stream_continue().  The point being
that the block number callback reported end-of-stream, but that was
only temporary, and now it has more information and would like to
continue.  Those are some of the names I bounced around for a new
read_stream_reset() flag argument for v19 (I rather liked "continue"),
but I also like this separate function idea.  Back-patching a new
function would certainly remove all doubt about unintended
consequences for existing callers of read_stream_reset(), so yeah,
that wins on pure conservative safety grounds.  As for the future,
hmm, it might even be better to have an explicit separate API for this
operation in master too, as it is turning out to be quite a common
requirement and the naming is much clearer like that.  We don't
usually design new APIs while back-patching though, that's probably
why I didn't think of that, but if we view this as a design bug that
folded too many jobs into read_stream_reset() that we now want to fix
by splitting one off, maybe that's OK?  Seems pretty risk-free,
anyway.

On Wed, Nov 12, 2025 at 12:19 PM Thomas Munro <thomas.munro@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 12, 2025 at 11:52 AM Melanie Plageman
> <melanieplageman@gmail.com> wrote:
> > If we are worried about regressing other extensions using
> > read_stream_reset(), we could make the read stream reset which
> > preserves the distance a different function in backbranches.

Here is a draft patch like that, that tries to be as small as
possible.  Trying out the name read_stream_resume().

Hi,

Thank you for working on this!

On Wed, 12 Nov 2025 at 07:12, Thomas Munro <thomas.munro@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Nov 12, 2025 at 12:19 PM Thomas Munro <thomas.munro@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Wed, Nov 12, 2025 at 11:52 AM Melanie Plageman
> > <melanieplageman@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > If we are worried about regressing other extensions using
> > > read_stream_reset(), we could make the read stream reset which
> > > preserves the distance a different function in backbranches.
>
> Here is a draft patch like that, that tries to be as small as
> possible.  Trying out the name read_stream_resume().

I liked the idea of having a different function named
read_stream_resume for this purpose.

0001 looks good to me.

0002:

+        /* End-of-stream. */
+        buf = read_stream_next_buffer(stream, NULL);
+        Assert(buf == InvalidBuffer);
+        buf = read_stream_next_buffer(stream, NULL);
+        Assert(buf == InvalidBuffer);

I noticed there are two 'read_stream_next_buffer()' and
'InvalidBuffer' checks. Does having both provide any additional
validation? I tried removing one of them, and the test still passed.

Also, there is one thing I wanted to clarify about the
'read_stream_resume()'. If 'read_stream_next_buffer()' returns an
'InvalidBuffer', then we can use 'read_stream_resume()' alone because
we know that we already consumed all buffers in the stream. For the
rest, we need to use 'read_stream_resume()' together with the
'read_stream_reset()', right?

--
Regards,
Nazir Bilal Yavuz
Microsoft

On Wed, Nov 12, 2025 at 9:04 PM Nazir Bilal Yavuz <byavuz81@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 12 Nov 2025 at 07:12, Thomas Munro <thomas.munro@gmail.com> wrote:
> 0002:
>
> +        /* End-of-stream. */
> +        buf = read_stream_next_buffer(stream, NULL);
> +        Assert(buf == InvalidBuffer);
> +        buf = read_stream_next_buffer(stream, NULL);
> +        Assert(buf == InvalidBuffer);
>
> I noticed there are two 'read_stream_next_buffer()' and
> 'InvalidBuffer' checks. Does having both provide any additional
> validation? I tried removing one of them, and the test still passed.

I wanted to demonstrate that this is a state that the stream is stuck
in until you call _resume().

I suppose an alternative design would be that _next_buffer() returns
InvalidBuffer only once (= the block number callback returns
InvalidBlock once) and then automatically resumes (= it restores the
distance) and then you can call read_stream_next_buffer() again (= the
block number callback will be called again to fill the stream up with
new buffers before waiting for the first one to be ready to give to
you if it isn't already).  That would have the advantage of not
requiring a new function at all and make the patch even shorter, but I
don't know, I guess I thought that would be a bit more fragile in some
way, less explicit.  Hmm, would it actually be better if it worked
like that?

> Also, there is one thing I wanted to clarify about the
> 'read_stream_resume()'. If 'read_stream_next_buffer()' returns an
> 'InvalidBuffer', then we can use 'read_stream_resume()' alone because
> we know that we already consumed all buffers in the stream. For the
> rest, we need to use 'read_stream_resume()' together with the
> 'read_stream_reset()', right?

For the rest, there would be no need to call read_stream_resume().

To recap the uses of read_stream_reset():  the original purpose was to
release any buffers (pins) that the stream is holding internally
because of look-ahead, and put it back to its original state, ready to
be reused.  It is called (1) by read_stream_end() as an implementation
detail (eg if a LIMIT or anything else except ERROR/FATAL ends your
query early, we need to unpin buffers queued in the stream before we
pfree it), (2) explicitly by rescans, (3) in hypothetical code I
thought about that would want to stream blocks speculatively and then
change its mind after predicting incorrectly (I had a few patches like
that, abandoned for now), and then (4) in this case, by places that
temporarily ran out of block numbers, but will have some more again
soon and want to resume the stream.

It was already debatable whether heuristic state like lookahead
distance should survive acoss rescans, or in other words, whether the
expected I/O requirements of the previous scan are a useful prediction
of the requirements of the next scan, but the answer is clearer in
case (4), hence the desire to find a way to separate that use case
from the others.

On Tue, Nov 11, 2025 at 11:12 PM Thomas Munro <thomas.munro@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Here is a draft patch like that, that tries to be as small as
> possible.  Trying out the name read_stream_resume().

I like read_stream_resume(). Tested out 0001 with pgvector and can
confirm it works.

In the test, I would initialize test_read_stream_resume_state.count to 0

+    test_read_stream_resume_state state = {.blkno = blkno};

- Melanie

On Wed, Nov 12, 2025 at 5:47 AM Thomas Munro <thomas.munro@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> I suppose an alternative design would be that _next_buffer() returns
> InvalidBuffer only once (= the block number callback returns
> InvalidBlock once) and then automatically resumes (= it restores the
> distance) and then you can call read_stream_next_buffer() again (= the
> block number callback will be called again to fill the stream up with
> new buffers before waiting for the first one to be ready to give to
> you if it isn't already).  That would have the advantage of not
> requiring a new function at all and make the patch even shorter, but I
> don't know, I guess I thought that would be a bit more fragile in some
> way, less explicit.  Hmm, would it actually be better if it worked
> like that?

We discussed off-list and decided that changing existing functionality
in an unexpected way is undesirable. So, it is better we stick with
adding read_stream_resume. However, in talking about
read_stream_resume() further, Thomas and I also thought of potential
issues with it:

If read_stream_resume() is called before the read stream user callback
has ever returned InvalidBlockNumber,
1) The value of resume_distance will be the original value of distance
from read_stream_begin_relation(). You don't want to reset the
distance to that value.
2) There may be inflight or completed buffers that have yet to be
yielded which will be returned the next time read_stream_next_buffer()
is invoked. If the user resets the state the callback is using to
return blocks and expects the next invocation of
read_stream_next_buffer() to return buffers with those blocks, they
will be disappointed.

If we try to address this by requiring that stream->distance is 0 when
read_stream_resume() is called, that won't work because while it is
set to 0 when the callback returns InvalidBlockNumber, there may still
be unreturned buffers in the stream.

If the user wants to use read_stream_reset() to exhaust the stream
before calling read_stream_resume(), read_stream_reset() sets
stream->distance to 1 at the end, so read_stream_resume() couldn't
detect if reset() was correctly called first or if the distance is > 0
because the stream is still in progress.

To make sure 1) distance isn't reset to a resume_distance from
read_stream_begin_relation() and 2) unexpected buffers aren't returned
from the read stream, we could error out in read_stream_resume() if
pinned_buffers > 0. And in read_stream_reset(), we would save distance
in resume_distance before clearing distance. That would allow calling
read_stream_resume() either if you called read_stream_reset() or if
you exhausted the stream yourself. See rough attached patch for a
sketch of this.

It would be nicer if we could error out if read_stream_next_buffer()
didn't return InvalidBuffer, but we can't do that if we want to allow
calling read_stream_reset() followed by read_stream_resume() because
distance won't be 0.

I tried this with a modified pgvector with an hnsw read stream user
and it seemed to work correctly.

- Melanie

Hi,

On Wed, 19 Nov 2025 at 00:17, Melanie Plageman
<melanieplageman@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> To make sure 1) distance isn't reset to a resume_distance from
> read_stream_begin_relation() and 2) unexpected buffers aren't returned
> from the read stream, we could error out in read_stream_resume() if
> pinned_buffers > 0. And in read_stream_reset(), we would save distance
> in resume_distance before clearing distance. That would allow calling
> read_stream_resume() either if you called read_stream_reset() or if
> you exhausted the stream yourself. See rough attached patch for a
> sketch of this.

This looks correct to me. What do you think about using an assert
instead of erroring out?

-- 
Regards,
Nazir Bilal Yavuz
Microsoft

On Wed, Nov 19, 2025 at 2:28 AM Nazir Bilal Yavuz <byavuz81@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > To make sure 1) distance isn't reset to a resume_distance from
> > read_stream_begin_relation() and 2) unexpected buffers aren't returned
> > from the read stream, we could error out in read_stream_resume() if
> > pinned_buffers > 0. And in read_stream_reset(), we would save distance
> > in resume_distance before clearing distance. That would allow calling
> > read_stream_resume() either if you called read_stream_reset() or if
> > you exhausted the stream yourself. See rough attached patch for a
> > sketch of this.
>
> This looks correct to me. What do you think about using an assert
> instead of erroring out?

I'm not totally opposed to this. My rationale for making it an error
is that the developer could have test cases where all the buffers are
consumed but the code is written such that that won't always happen.
Then if a real production query doesn't consume all the buffers, it
could return wrong results (I think). That will mean the user can't
complete their query until the extension author releases a new version
of their code. But I'm not sure what the right answer is here.

- Melanie

On Fri, Nov 21, 2025 at 4:28 AM Melanie Plageman
<melanieplageman@gmail.com> wrote:
> I'm not totally opposed to this. My rationale for making it an error
> is that the developer could have test cases where all the buffers are
> consumed but the code is written such that that won't always happen.
> Then if a real production query doesn't consume all the buffers, it
> could return wrong results (I think). That will mean the user can't
> complete their query until the extension author releases a new version
> of their code. But I'm not sure what the right answer is here.

Focusing on making sure v19 has a good interface for this, and
abandoning thoughts of back-patching a bandaid, and the constraints
that leads to, for now...

I think it'd be better if that were the consumer's choice.   I don't
want the consumer to be required to drain the stream before resuming,
as that'd be an unprincipled stall.  For example, if new WAL arrives
over the network then I think it should be possible for recovery's
WAL-powered stream of heap pages to resume looking ahead even if
recovery hasn't drained the existing stream completely.

Peter G (CC'd) and I discussed some problems he had in the index
prefetching work, and I tried to extend this a bit to give the
semantics he wanted, in point 2 below.  It's simple itself, but might
lead to some tricky questions higher up.  Posted for experimentation.
It'll be interesting to see if this goes somewhere.

1.  read_stream_resume() as before, but with a new explicit
read_stream_pause(): if a block number callback would like to report a
temporary lack of information, it should return
read_stream_pause(stream), not InvalidBlockNumber.  Then after
read_stream_resume(stream) is called, the next
read_stream_next_buffer() enters the lookahead loop again.  While
paused, if the consumer drains all the existing buffers in the stream
and then one more, it will receive InvalidBuffer, but if the _resume()
call is made sooner, the consumer won't ever know about the temporary
lack of buffers in the stream.

2.  read_stream_yield(): while streaming heap pages that come from
TIDs on index pages, Peter didn't like that the executor lost control
of how much work was done by the lookahead loop underneath
read_stream_next_buffer().  The consumer might have a heap page with
some tuples that could be emitted right now, but the block number
callback might be evaluating arbitrarily expensive filter qual
expressions far ahead, and they might prefer to emit more tuples now
before doing an unbounded amount of work finding more.  This interface
allows some limited coroutine-like multitasking, where the block
number callback can return read_stream_yield(stream) to return control
back to the consumer periodically if it knows the consumer could
already do something else.  It works by pausing the stream and
resuming it in the next read_stream_next_buffer() call, but that's an
internal detail.

Some half-baked thoughts about the resulting flow control:

Yielding control periodically just when it happens to be possible
within the constraints of the volcano executor is an interesting thing
to think about.  You can only yield if you already have a tuple to
emit.  There is no saying when control will return to you, and the
node you yield to might immediately block on I/O and yet you could
have been doing useful CPU work.  You probably need an event-driven
node-hopping executor to fix that in general, but on the flip side, I
can think of one bet that I'd take: if you already have a tuple to
emit AND if index scans themselves (not only referenced heap pages)
were also streamed AND if a hypothetical
read_stream_next_buffer_no_wait(btree_stream) said the next index page
you need is not ready yet, then you should yield.  You're gambling
that other plan nodes will have better luck running without an I/O
stall, but you have ~0% chance.

Yielding just because you've scanned N index pages/tuples/whatever is
harder to think about.  The stream shouldn't get far ahead unless it's
recently been useful for I/O concurrency (though optimal distance
heuristics are an open problem), but in this case a single invocation
of the block number callback can call ReadBuffer() an arbitrary number
of times, filtering out all the index tuples as it rampages through
the whole index IIUC.  I see why you might want to yield periodically
if you can, but I also wonder how much that can really help if you
still have to pick up where you left off next time.  I guess it
depends on the distribution of matches.  It's also clear that any
cold-cache testing done with direct I/O enabled will stall abominably
as long as that level calls ReadBuffer(), possibly confusing matters.

On Mon, Dec 8, 2025 at 10:47 PM Thomas Munro <thomas.munro@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> I think it'd be better if that were the consumer's choice.   I don't
> want the consumer to be required to drain the stream before resuming,
> as that'd be an unprincipled stall.  For example, if new WAL arrives
> over the network then I think it should be possible for recovery's
> WAL-powered stream of heap pages to resume looking ahead even if
> recovery hasn't drained the existing stream completely.
>
> 1.  read_stream_resume() as before, but with a new explicit
> read_stream_pause(): if a block number callback would like to report a
> temporary lack of information, it should return
> read_stream_pause(stream), not InvalidBlockNumber.  Then after
> read_stream_resume(stream) is called, the next
> read_stream_next_buffer() enters the lookahead loop again.  While
> paused, if the consumer drains all the existing buffers in the stream
> and then one more, it will receive InvalidBuffer, but if the _resume()
> call is made sooner, the consumer won't ever know about the temporary
> lack of buffers in the stream.

I like this new interface. If the user does want to exhaust the stream
(as was the case with earlier pgvector read stream user code), I
assume you would want to do:

read_stream_pause()
read_stream_reset()
read_stream_resume()

- Melanie

On Mon, Dec 8, 2025 at 10:47 PM Thomas Munro <thomas.munro@gmail.com> wrote:
> Yielding just because you've scanned N index pages/tuples/whatever is
> harder to think about.  The stream shouldn't get far ahead unless it's
> recently been useful for I/O concurrency (though optimal distance
> heuristics are an open problem), but in this case a single invocation
> of the block number callback can call ReadBuffer() an arbitrary number
> of times, filtering out all the index tuples as it rampages through
> the whole index IIUC.  I see why you might want to yield periodically
> if you can, but I also wonder how much that can really help if you
> still have to pick up where you left off next time.

I think of it as a necessary precaution against pathological behavior
where the amount of memory used to cache matching tuples/TIDs gets out
of hand. There's no specific reason to expect that to happen (or no
good reason). But I'm pretty sure that it'll prove necessary to pay
non-zero attention to how much work has been done since the last time
we returned a tuple (when there's a tuple available to return).

> I guess it
> depends on the distribution of matches.

To be clear, I haven't done any kind of modelling of the problems in
this area. Once I do that (in 2026), I'll be able to say more about
the requirements. Maybe Tomas could take a look sooner?

Right now my focus is on getting the basic interfaces/API revisions in
better shape. And avoiding regressions while doing so.

--
Peter Geoghegan