Re: Increase default maintenance_io_concurrency to 16 - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Bruce Momjian
Subject Re: Increase default maintenance_io_concurrency to 16
Date
Msg-id Z9njbVYyzxX0cgIr@momjian.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Increase default maintenance_io_concurrency to 16  (Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>)
Responses Re: Increase default maintenance_io_concurrency to 16
List pgsql-hackers
On Tue, Mar 18, 2025 at 05:04:46PM -0400, Andres Freund wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> On 2025-03-18 16:35:29 -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > Uh, the random_page_cost = 4 assumes caching, so it is assuming actual
> > random I/O to be 40x slower, which I doubt is true for SSDs:
> 
> Uh, huh:
> 
> >     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.
> 
> Is that actually a good description of what we assume? I don't know where that
> 90% is coming from? Briefly skimming through selfuncs.c and costsize.c I don't
> see anything.

The next paragraph is:

    If you believe a 90% cache rate is an incorrect assumption
    for your workload, you can increase random_page_cost to better
    reflect the true cost of random storage reads. Correspondingly,
    if your data is likely to be completely in cache, such as when
    the database is smaller than the total server memory, decreasing
    random_page_cost can be appropriate. Storage that has a low random
    read cost relative to sequential, e.g., solid-state drives, might
    also be better modeled with a lower value for random_page_cost,
    e.g., 1.1.

> The relevant change:
> 
> commit c1d9df4fa227781b31be44a5a3024865a7f48049
> Author: Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us>
> Date:   2012-02-14 16:54:54 -0500
> 
>     Document random page cost is only 4x seqeuntial, and not 40x.
> 
> The relevant discussion seems to be:
> https://postgr.es/m/4F31A05A.1060506%402ndQuadrant.com
> 
> But I don't see any origin of that number in that thread.
> 
> I am not sure if I found the correct email for Greg Smith?

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.
8
-- 
  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.



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Jeff Davis
Date:
Subject: Re: Update Unicode data to Unicode 16.0.0
Next
From: Nathan Bossart
Date:
Subject: Re: vacuumdb changes for stats import/export