Re: RAID arrays and performance

Matthew wrote:
> On Tue, 4 Dec 2007, Mark Mielke wrote:
>
>> The bitmap scan method does ordered reads of the table, which can
>> partially take advantage of sequential reads. Not sure whether bitmap
>> scan is optimal for your situation or whether your situation would allow
>> this to be taken advantage of.
>>
> Bitmap scan may help where several randomly-accessed pages are next to
> each other. However, I would expect the operating system's readahead and
> buffer cache to take care of that one.
>
The disk head has less theoretical distance to travel if always moving
in a single direction instead of randomly seeking back and forth.
>> Do you know that there is a problem, or are you speculating about one? I
>> think your case would be far more compelling if you could show a
>> problem. :-)
>>
>> I would think that at a minimum, having 12 disks with RAID 0 or RAID 1+0
>> would allow your insane queries to run concurrent with up to 12 other
>> queries.
>>
> Yeah, I don't really care about concurrency. It's pretty obvious that
> running x concurrent queries on an x-disc RAID system will allow the
> utilisation of all the discs at once, therefore allowing the performance
> to scale by x. What I'm talking about is a single query running on an
> x-disc RAID array.
>
The time to seek to a particular sector does not reduce 12X with 12
disks. It is still approximately the same, only it can handle 12X the
concurrency. This makes RAID best for concurrent loads. In your
scenario, you are trying to make a single query take advantage of this
concurrency by taking advantage of the system cache. I don't think full
12X concurrency of a single query is possible for most loads, probably
including yours. See later for details.
>> I recall talk of more intelligent table scanning algorithms, and the use
>> of asynchronous I/O to benefit from RAID arrays, but the numbers
>> prepared to convince people that the change would have effect have been
>> less than impressive.
>>
> I think a twelve-times speed increase is impressive. Granted, given
> greatly-concurrent access, the benefits go away, but I think it'd be worth
> it for when there are few queries running on the system.
>
> I don't think you would have to create a more intelligent table scanning
> algorithm. What you would need to do is take the results of the index,
> convert that to a list of page fetches, then pass that list to the OS as
> an asynchronous "please fetch all these into the buffer cache" request,
> then do the normal algorithm as is currently done. The requests would then
> come out of the cache instead of from the disc. Of course, this is from a
> simple Java programmer who doesn't know the OS interfaces for this sort of
> thing.
>
That's about how the talk went. :-)

The problem is that a 12X speed for 12 disks seems unlikely except under
very specific loads (such as a sequential scan of a single table). Each
of the indexes may need to be scanned or searched in turn, then each of
the tables would need to be scanned or searched in turn, depending on
the query plan. There is no guarantee that the index rows or the table
rows are equally spread across the 12 disks. CPU processing becomes
involved with is currently limited to a single processor thread. I
suspect no database would achieve a 12X speedup for 12 disks unless a
simple sequential scan of a single table was required, in which case the
reads could be fully parallelized with RAID 0 using standard sequential
reads, and this is available today using built-in OS or disk read-ahead.

Cheers,
mark

--
Mark Mielke <mark(at)mielke(dot)cc>