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

Chao Li <li.evan.chao@gmail.com> writes:
>> On Oct 14, 2025, at 08:36, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>> The thing we are really interested in here is how fast pg_restore
>> can skip over unwanted table data in a large archive file, and that
>> I believe should be pretty sensitive to block size.

> Not sure if I did something wrong, but I still don’t see much difference between buffer size 4K and 128K with your
suggestedtest. 
>
> % time pg_dump -Fc -f db.dump evantest

This won't show the effect, because pg_dump will be able to go back
and insert data offsets into the dump's TOC, so pg_restore can just
seek to where the data is.  See upthread discussion about what's
needed to provoke Dimitrios' problem.

I tried this very tiny (relatively speaking) test case:

regression=# create database d1;
CREATE DATABASE
regression=# \c d1
You are now connected to database "d1" as user "postgres".
d1=# create table alpha as select repeat(random()::text, 1000) from generate_series(1,1000000);
SELECT 1000000
d1=# create table omega as select 42 as x;
SELECT 1
d1=# \q

Then

$ pg_dump -Fc d1 | cat >d1.dump
$ time pg_restore -f /dev/null -t omega d1.dump

The point of the pipe-to-cat is to reproduce Dimitrios' problem case
with no data offsets in the TOC.  Then the restore is doing about the
simplest thing I can think of to make it skip over most of the archive
file.  Also, I'm intentionally using the default choice of gzip
because that already responds to DEFAULT_IO_BUFFER_SIZE properly.
(This test is with current HEAD, no patches except adjusting
DEFAULT_IO_BUFFER_SIZE.)

I got these timings:

DEFAULT_IO_BUFFER_SIZE = 1K
real    0m0.020s
user    0m0.002s
sys     0m0.017s

DEFAULT_IO_BUFFER_SIZE = 4K
real    0m0.014s
user    0m0.003s
sys     0m0.011s

DEFAULT_IO_BUFFER_SIZE = 128K
real    0m0.002s
user    0m0.000s
sys     0m0.002s

This test case has only about 50MB worth of compressed data,
so of course the times are very small; scaling it up to
gigabytes would yield more impressive results.  But the
effect is clearly visible.

            regards, tom lane