You can not select more than 25 topics Topics must start with a letter or number, can include dashes ('-') and can be up to 35 characters long.
postgres/src/include/executor/nodeBitmapIndexscan.h

31 lines
1.2 KiB

/*-------------------------------------------------------------------------
*
* nodeBitmapIndexscan.h
*
*
*
* Portions Copyright (c) 1996-2025, PostgreSQL Global Development Group
* Portions Copyright (c) 1994, Regents of the University of California
*
* src/include/executor/nodeBitmapIndexscan.h
*
*-------------------------------------------------------------------------
*/
#ifndef NODEBITMAPINDEXSCAN_H
#define NODEBITMAPINDEXSCAN_H
Show index search count in EXPLAIN ANALYZE, take 2. Expose the count of index searches/index descents in EXPLAIN ANALYZE's output for index scan/index-only scan/bitmap index scan nodes. This information is particularly useful with scans that use ScalarArrayOp quals, where the number of index searches can be unpredictable due to implementation details that interact with physical index characteristics (at least with nbtree SAOP scans, since Postgres 17 commit 5bf748b8). The information shown also provides useful context when EXPLAIN ANALYZE runs a plan with an index scan node that successfully applied the skip scan optimization (set to be added to nbtree by an upcoming patch). The instrumentation works by teaching all index AMs to increment a new nsearches counter whenever a new index search begins. The counter is incremented at exactly the same point that index AMs already increment the pg_stat_*_indexes.idx_scan counter (we're counting the same event, but at the scan level rather than the relation level). Parallel queries have workers copy their local counter struct into shared memory when an index scan node ends -- even when it isn't a parallel aware scan node. An earlier version of this patch that only worked with parallel aware scans became commit 5ead85fb (though that was quickly reverted by commit d00107cd following "debug_parallel_query=regress" buildfarm failures). Our approach doesn't match the approach used when tracking other index scan related costs (e.g., "Rows Removed by Filter:"). It is comparable to the approach used in similar cases involving costs that are only readily accessible inside an access method, not from the executor proper (e.g., "Heap Blocks:" output for a Bitmap Heap Scan, which was recently enhanced to show per-worker costs by commit 5a1e6df3, using essentially the same scheme as the one used here). It is necessary for index AMs to have direct responsibility for maintaining the new counter, since the counter might need to be incremented multiple times per amgettuple call (or per amgetbitmap call). But it is also necessary for the executor proper to manage the shared memory now used to transfer each worker's counter struct to the leader. Author: Peter Geoghegan <pg@bowt.ie> Reviewed-By: Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> Reviewed-By: Tomas Vondra <tomas@vondra.me> Reviewed-By: Masahiro Ikeda <ikedamsh@oss.nttdata.com> Reviewed-By: Matthias van de Meent <boekewurm+postgres@gmail.com> Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CAH2-WzkRqvaqR2CTNqTZP0z6FuL4-3ED6eQB0yx38XBNj1v-4Q@mail.gmail.com Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CAH2-Wz=PKR6rB7qbx+Vnd7eqeB5VTcrW=iJvAsTsKbdG+kW_UA@mail.gmail.com
4 months ago
#include "access/parallel.h"
#include "nodes/execnodes.h"
extern BitmapIndexScanState *ExecInitBitmapIndexScan(BitmapIndexScan *node, EState *estate, int eflags);
extern Node *MultiExecBitmapIndexScan(BitmapIndexScanState *node);
extern void ExecEndBitmapIndexScan(BitmapIndexScanState *node);
extern void ExecReScanBitmapIndexScan(BitmapIndexScanState *node);
Show index search count in EXPLAIN ANALYZE, take 2. Expose the count of index searches/index descents in EXPLAIN ANALYZE's output for index scan/index-only scan/bitmap index scan nodes. This information is particularly useful with scans that use ScalarArrayOp quals, where the number of index searches can be unpredictable due to implementation details that interact with physical index characteristics (at least with nbtree SAOP scans, since Postgres 17 commit 5bf748b8). The information shown also provides useful context when EXPLAIN ANALYZE runs a plan with an index scan node that successfully applied the skip scan optimization (set to be added to nbtree by an upcoming patch). The instrumentation works by teaching all index AMs to increment a new nsearches counter whenever a new index search begins. The counter is incremented at exactly the same point that index AMs already increment the pg_stat_*_indexes.idx_scan counter (we're counting the same event, but at the scan level rather than the relation level). Parallel queries have workers copy their local counter struct into shared memory when an index scan node ends -- even when it isn't a parallel aware scan node. An earlier version of this patch that only worked with parallel aware scans became commit 5ead85fb (though that was quickly reverted by commit d00107cd following "debug_parallel_query=regress" buildfarm failures). Our approach doesn't match the approach used when tracking other index scan related costs (e.g., "Rows Removed by Filter:"). It is comparable to the approach used in similar cases involving costs that are only readily accessible inside an access method, not from the executor proper (e.g., "Heap Blocks:" output for a Bitmap Heap Scan, which was recently enhanced to show per-worker costs by commit 5a1e6df3, using essentially the same scheme as the one used here). It is necessary for index AMs to have direct responsibility for maintaining the new counter, since the counter might need to be incremented multiple times per amgettuple call (or per amgetbitmap call). But it is also necessary for the executor proper to manage the shared memory now used to transfer each worker's counter struct to the leader. Author: Peter Geoghegan <pg@bowt.ie> Reviewed-By: Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> Reviewed-By: Tomas Vondra <tomas@vondra.me> Reviewed-By: Masahiro Ikeda <ikedamsh@oss.nttdata.com> Reviewed-By: Matthias van de Meent <boekewurm+postgres@gmail.com> Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CAH2-WzkRqvaqR2CTNqTZP0z6FuL4-3ED6eQB0yx38XBNj1v-4Q@mail.gmail.com Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CAH2-Wz=PKR6rB7qbx+Vnd7eqeB5VTcrW=iJvAsTsKbdG+kW_UA@mail.gmail.com
4 months ago
extern void ExecBitmapIndexScanEstimate(BitmapIndexScanState *node, ParallelContext *pcxt);
extern void ExecBitmapIndexScanInitializeDSM(BitmapIndexScanState *node, ParallelContext *pcxt);
extern void ExecBitmapIndexScanInitializeWorker(BitmapIndexScanState *node,
ParallelWorkerContext *pwcxt);
extern void ExecBitmapIndexScanRetrieveInstrumentation(BitmapIndexScanState *node);
Phase 2 of pgindent updates. Change pg_bsd_indent to follow upstream rules for placement of comments to the right of code, and remove pgindent hack that caused comments following #endif to not obey the general rule. Commit e3860ffa4dd0dad0dd9eea4be9cc1412373a8c89 wasn't actually using the published version of pg_bsd_indent, but a hacked-up version that tried to minimize the amount of movement of comments to the right of code. The situation of interest is where such a comment has to be moved to the right of its default placement at column 33 because there's code there. BSD indent has always moved right in units of tab stops in such cases --- but in the previous incarnation, indent was working in 8-space tab stops, while now it knows we use 4-space tabs. So the net result is that in about half the cases, such comments are placed one tab stop left of before. This is better all around: it leaves more room on the line for comment text, and it means that in such cases the comment uniformly starts at the next 4-space tab stop after the code, rather than sometimes one and sometimes two tabs after. Also, ensure that comments following #endif are indented the same as comments following other preprocessor commands such as #else. That inconsistency turns out to have been self-inflicted damage from a poorly-thought-through post-indent "fixup" in pgindent. This patch is much less interesting than the first round of indent changes, but also bulkier, so I thought it best to separate the effects. Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/E1dAmxK-0006EE-1r@gemulon.postgresql.org Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/30527.1495162840@sss.pgh.pa.us
8 years ago
#endif /* NODEBITMAPINDEXSCAN_H */