"Nick Fankhauser" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I bounced these numbers off of Ray Ontko here at our shop, and he pointed
> out that random page cost is measured in multiples of a sequential page
> fetch. It seems almost impossible that a random fetch would be less
> expensive than a sequential fetch, yet we all seem to be getting results <
> 1. I can't see anything obviously wrong with the script, but something very
> odd is going.
The big problem with the script is that it involves an invocation of
"dd" - hence, at least one process fork --- for every page read
operation. The seqscan part of the test is even worse, as it adds a
test(1) call and a shell if/then/else to the overhead. My guess is that
we are measuring script overhead here, and not the desired I/O quantities
at all --- the script overhead is completely swamping the latter. The
apparent stability of the results across a number of different platforms
bolsters that thought.
Someone else opined that the script was also not comparing equal
numbers of pages read for the random and sequential cases. I haven't
tried to decipher the logic enough to see if that allegation is true,
but it's not obviously false.
Finally, I wouldn't believe the results for a moment if they were taken
against databases that are not several times the size of physical RAM
on the test machine, with a total I/O volume also much more than
physical RAM. We are trying to measure the behavior when kernel
caching is not helpful; if the database fits in RAM then you are just
naturally going to get random_page_cost close to 1, because the kernel
will avoid doing any I/O at all.
regards, tom lane
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 3: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate
subscribe-nomail command to [EMAIL PROTECTED] so that your
message can get through to the mailing list cleanly
