Re: Should we update the random_page_cost default value?
От | Bruce Momjian |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Should we update the random_page_cost default value? |
Дата | |
Msg-id | aOP68_ZWVovhkqWF@momjian.us обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Should we update the random_page_cost default value? (Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>) |
Ответы |
Re: Should we update the random_page_cost default value?
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, Oct 6, 2025 at 01:06:21PM -0400, Andres Freund wrote: > Hi, > > On 2025-10-06 12:57:20 -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote: > > On Mon, Oct 6, 2025 at 11:14:13AM -0400, Andres Freund wrote: > > > > It obviously contradicts the advice to set the value closer to 1.0. But > > > > why is that? SSDs are certainly better with random I/0, even if the I/O > > > > is not concurrent and the SSD is not fully utilized. So the 4.0 seems > > > > off, the value should be higher than what we got for SSDs ... > > > > > > I'd guess that the *vast* majority of PG workloads these days run on networked > > > block storage. For those typically the actual latency at the storage level is > > > a rather small fraction of the overall IO latency, which is instead dominated > > > by network and other related cost (like the indirection to which storage > > > system to go to and crossing VM/host boundaries). Because the majority of the > > > IO latency is not affected by the storage latency, but by network lotency, the > > > random IO/non-random IO difference will play less of a role. > > > > Yes, the last time we discussed changing the default random page cost, > > September 2024, the argument was that while SSDs should be < 4, cloud > > storage might be > 4, so 4 was still a good value: > > > > https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/flat/877caxaxt6.fsf%40wibble.ilmari.org#8a10b7b8cf05410291d076f8def58c29 > > I think it's exactly the other way round. The difference between random and > sequential IO is *smaller* on cloud storage than on local storage, due to > network IO being the biggest component of IO latency on cloud storage - and > network latency is the same for random and sequential IO. > > > Add in cache effects for all of these storage devices as outlined in our > > docs. > > As discussed in [1], the cache effect related comments in the docs seem pretty > bogus. We'd be much better off just removing them, they really don't make much > sense. Fine, but without the doc comments, we have _no_ logic for why the value is so small. -- Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> https://momjian.us EDB https://enterprisedb.com Do not let urgent matters crowd out time for investment in the future.
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: