Re: [PING] [PATCH v2] parallel pg_restore: avoid disk seeks when jumping short distance forward

On Sat, 14 Jun 2025, Dimitrios Apostolou wrote:

> On Fri, 13 Jun 2025, Nathan Bossart wrote:
>
>>  On Fri, Jun 13, 2025 at 01:00:26AM +0200, Dimitrios Apostolou wrote:
>>>  By the way, I might have set the threshold to 1MB in my program, but
>>>  lowering it won't show a difference in my test case, since the lseek()s I
>>>  was noticing before the patch were mostly 8-16KB forward. Not sure what
>>>  is
>>>  the defining factor for that. Maybe the compression algorithm, or how
>>>  wide
>>>  the table is?
>>
>>  I may have missed it, but could you share what the strace looks like with
>>  the patch applied?
>
> read(4, "..."..., 8192) = 8192
> read(4, "..."..., 4096) = 4096
> read(4, "..."..., 12288) = 12288
> read(4, "..."..., 4096) = 4096
> read(4, "..."..., 8192) = 8192
> read(4, "..."..., 4096) = 4096
> read(4, "..."..., 8192) = 8192
> read(4, "..."..., 4096) = 4096
> read(4, "..."..., 8192) = 8192
> read(4, "..."..., 4096) = 4096
> read(4, "..."..., 8192) = 8192
> read(4, "..."..., 4096) = 4096
> read(4, "..."..., 8192) = 8192
> read(4, "..."..., 4096) = 4096
> read(4, "..."..., 8192) = 8192
> read(4, "..."..., 4096) = 4096
> read(4, "..."..., 12288) = 12288
> read(4, "..."..., 4096) = 4096
> read(4, "..."..., 8192) = 8192
> read(4, "..."..., 4096) = 4096
> read(4, "..."..., 12288) = 12288
> read(4, "..."..., 4096) = 4096
> read(4, "..."..., 8192) = 8192
> read(4, "..."..., 4096) = 4096
> read(4, "..."..., 8192) = 8192
> read(4, "..."..., 4096) = 4096
> read(4, "..."..., 12288) = 12288
> read(4, "..."..., 4096) = 4096
> read(4, "..."..., 8192) = 8192
> read(4, "..."..., 4096) = 4096


This was from pg_restoring a zstd-compressed custom format dump.

Out of curiosity I've tried the same with an uncompressed dump
(--compress=none). Surprisingly it seems the blocksize is even smaller.

With my patched pg_restore I only get 4K reads and nothing else on
the strace output.

read(4, "..."..., 4096) = 4096
read(4, "..."..., 4096) = 4096
read(4, "..."..., 4096) = 4096
read(4, "..."..., 4096) = 4096
read(4, "..."..., 4096) = 4096
read(4, "..."..., 4096) = 4096

The unpatched pg_restore gives me the weirdest output ever:

read(4, "..."..., 4096) = 4096
lseek(4, 98527916032, SEEK_SET)         = 98527916032
lseek(4, 98527916032, SEEK_SET)         = 98527916032
lseek(4, 98527916032, SEEK_SET)         = 98527916032
lseek(4, 98527916032, SEEK_SET)         = 98527916032
lseek(4, 98527916032, SEEK_SET)         = 98527916032
lseek(4, 98527916032, SEEK_SET)         = 98527916032
[ ... repeats about 80 times ...]
read(4, "..."..., 4096) = 4096
lseek(4, 98527920128, SEEK_SET)         = 98527920128
lseek(4, 98527920128, SEEK_SET)         = 98527920128
lseek(4, 98527920128, SEEK_SET)         = 98527920128
lseek(4, 98527920128, SEEK_SET)         = 98527920128
[ ... repeats ... ]



Seeing this, I think we should really consider raising the pg_dump block
size like Tom suggested on a previous thread.


Dimitris