On Tue, Mar 24, 2020 at 1:24 AM Amit Kapila <amit.kapil...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Fri, Mar 20, 2020 at 7:09 AM James Coleman <jtc...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > Awesome, thanks for confirming with an actual plan. > > > > > I don't think it matters in nontext mode, but at least in text mode, I > > > think > > > maybe the Unfetched blocks should be output after the exact and lossy > > > blocks, > > > in case someone is parsing it, and because bitmap-only is a relatively new > > > feature. Its output is probably less common than exact/lossy. > > > > I tweaked that (and a comment that didn't reference the change); see > > attached. > > > > Few comments: > 1. > - > - if (tbmres->ntuples >= 0) > + else if (tbmres->ntuples >= 0) > node->exact_pages++; > > How is this change related to this patch?
<already answered by Justin> > 2. > + * unfetched_pages total number of pages not retrieved due to vm > * prefetch_iterator iterator for prefetching ahead of current page > * prefetch_pages # pages prefetch iterator is ahead of current > * prefetch_target current target prefetch distance > @@ -1591,6 +1592,7 @@ typedef struct BitmapHeapScanState > Buffer pvmbuffer; > long exact_pages; > long lossy_pages; > + long unfetched_pages; > > Can we name it as skipped_pages? That seems easy enough to do. > 3. Can we add a test or two for this functionality? >From what I can tell the current lossy page count isn't tested either; would we expect the explain output from such a test to be stable across different architectures etc.? James
