I did some more tests. I've made an SQL dump of the table. Then used
head/tail commands to cut the data part. Then used shuf command to
shuffle rows, and then joined the pieces back and restored the table
back into DB.
Before:
select array_agg(aid) from (select aid from pgbench_accounts order by
ctid limit 20)_;
{1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14,15,16,17,18,19,20}
effective_io_concurrency=0 Execution time: 1455.336 ms
effective_io_concurrency=1 Execution time: 8365.070 ms
effective_io_concurrency=2 Execution time: 4791.961 ms
effective_io_concurrency=4 Execution time: 4113.713 ms
effective_io_concurrency=8 Execution time: 1584.862 ms
effective_io_concurrency=16 Execution time: 1533.096 ms
effective_io_concurrency=8 Execution time: 1494.494 ms
effective_io_concurrency=4 Execution time: 3235.892 ms
effective_io_concurrency=2 Execution time: 4624.334 ms
effective_io_concurrency=1 Execution time: 7831.310 ms
effective_io_concurrency=0 Execution time: 1422.203 ms
After:
select array_agg(aid) from (select aid from pgbench_accounts order by
ctid limit 20)_;
{6861090,18316007,2361004,11880097,5079470,9859942,13776329,12687163,3793362,18312052,15912971,9928864,10179242,9307499,2737986,13911147,5337329,12582498,3019085,4631617}
effective_io_concurrency=0 Execution time: 71321.723 ms
effective_io_concurrency=1 Execution time: 180230.742 ms
effective_io_concurrency=2 Execution time: 98635.566 ms
effective_io_concurrency=4 Execution time: 91464.375 ms
effective_io_concurrency=8 Execution time: 91048.939 ms
effective_io_concurrency=16 Execution time: 97682.475 ms
effective_io_concurrency=8 Execution time: 91262.404 ms
effective_io_concurrency=4 Execution time: 90945.560 ms
effective_io_concurrency=2 Execution time: 97019.504 ms
effective_io_concurrency=1 Execution time: 180331.474 ms
effective_io_concurrency=0 Execution time: 71469.484 ms
The numbers are not directly comparable with the previous tests, because
this time I used scale factor 200.
Regards,
Vitaliy
On 2018-02-01 20:39, Claudio Freire wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 31, 2018 at 11:21 PM, hzzhangjiazhi
> <hzzhangjiazhi@corp.netease.com> wrote:
>> HI
>>
>> I think this parameter will be usefull when the storage using RAID
>> stripe , otherwise turn up this parameter is meaningless when only has one
>> device。
> Not at all. Especially on EBS, where keeping a relatively full queue
> is necessary to get max thoughput out of the drive.
>
> Problem is, if you're scanning a highly correlated index, the
> mechanism is counterproductive. I had worked on some POC patches for
> correcting that, I guess I could work something out, but it's
> low-priority for me. Especially since it's actually a kernel "bug" (or
> shortcoming), that could be fixed in the kernel rather than worked
> around by postgres.
>
