From: | Melanie Plageman <melanieplageman(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Jakub Wartak <jakub(dot)wartak(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
Cc: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)gmail(dot)com>, Tomas Vondra <tomas(at)vondra(dot)me>, Nazir Bilal Yavuz <byavuz81(at)gmail(dot)com>, Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut(at)gmail(dot)com>, Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka(at)iki(dot)fi>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: BitmapHeapScan streaming read user and prelim refactoring |
Date: | 2025-03-17 18:52:02 |
Message-ID: | CAAKRu_bNoYcRPgymvam_XpxkQW+giiOAh1x=JNZ2ESZ_d53PsQ@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, Mar 17, 2025 at 3:44 AM Jakub Wartak
<jakub(dot)wartak(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> wrote:
>
> dunno, I've just asked if it isn't suspicious to anyone except me else
> that e_io_c > m_io_c rather than e_io_c <= m_io_c. My understanding
> was always that to tune max IO queue depth you would do this:
> a. up to N backends (up to max_connections; usually much lower) * e_io_c
> b. autovacuum_max_workers * m_io_c
> c. just one (standby/recovering) * m_io_c
>
> The thing (for me) is: if we are allowing for much higher IOPS "a"
> scenario, then why standby cannot use just the same (if not higher)
> IOPS for prefetching in "c" scenario. After all, it is a much more
> critical and sensitive thing (lag).
This sounds quite reasonable to me. Given I just changed the default
effective_io_concurrency to 16, what value would you say is reasonable
for maintenance_io_concurrency? I based the eic change off of
experimentation -- seeing where the benefits flatlined for a certain
class of query on a couple different kinds of machines with different
IO latencies. I don't feel strongly that we need to be as rigorous for
maintenance_io_concurrency, but I'm also not sure 160 seems reasonable
(which would be the same ratio as before).
- Melanie
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Jeff Davis | 2025-03-17 18:54:03 | Re: Update Unicode data to Unicode 16.0.0 |
Previous Message | Pavel Stehule | 2025-03-17 18:32:59 | Re: Re: proposal: schema variables |