Re: Increase default maintenance_io_concurrency to 16
От | Tom Lane |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Increase default maintenance_io_concurrency to 16 |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 586812.1742334443@sss.pgh.pa.us обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Increase default maintenance_io_concurrency to 16 (Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us>) |
Список | pgsql-hackers |
Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> writes: >>> https://www.postgresql.org/docs/current/runtime-config-query.html#RUNTIME-CONFIG-QUERY-CONSTANTS >>> >>> Random access to mechanical disk storage is normally much more expensive >>> than four times sequential access. However, a lower default is used >>> (4.0) because the majority of random accesses to disk, such as indexed >>> reads, are assumed to be in cache. The default value can be thought of >>> as modeling random access as 40 times slower than sequential, while >>> expecting 90% of random reads to be cached. This explanation is, in fact, made up out of whole cloth. It has diddly-squat to do with where the number came from, although maybe it's an okay rationalization for continuing to use 4.0 on modern hardware. Where the number came from is that I did a bunch of testing back in the late 90s and random_page_cost = 4.0 made the planner's ratios of seqscan vs indexscan costs match up with observed timings. Of course, those observations were made with spinning-rust drives, so you'd not get the same results on SSDs. > Yes, I can't say there is much research behind the value, and even if > there was, the assumed hardware is unlikely to be relevant today. Yes as to the latter, no as to the former. regards, tom lane
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: