Re: explanation for random_page_cost is outdated

Sorry to hijack the thread, I also recently have similar observation that
the statement about random_page_cost on SSD is ambiguous. The current
document says that

> 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.

However, this statement does not clarify what values might be good. For
some workload, the default value 4.0 would cause bad performance and
lowering random_page_cost to a value 3.0 or 2.0 does not solve the
performance problem. Only when the random_page_cost is lowered to below 1.2
will the bad performance be mitigated. Thus, I would suggest elaborating on
this description further as:

> Storage that has a low random read cost relative to sequential, e.g.
solid-state drives, might also be better modeled with a value that is close
to 1 for random_page_cost.

Detail:

I run the PostgreSQL 11 on an SSD hardware. The database has two small
tables with 6MB and 16MB separately. The pgbench runs a select join query
in 1 min. The result shows that when the random_page_cost is 1, the average
latency is 14ms. When the random_page_cost is 1.5, 2, 3 or 4, the average
latency is 26ms. This result suggests that setting random_page_cost to a
value larger than 1.5 would cause almost 2x latency. If I increase the 6MB
table to 60MB and rerun the sysbench, the result shows that when the
random_page_cost is 1, the average latency is 13ms. When the
random_page_cost is 1.5,2,3 or 4, the average latency is 17ms.

I attached my testing script, the postgresql configuration file, and
planner output.

On Mon, Apr 27, 2020 at 3:19 AM Олег Самойлов <splarv(at)ya(dot)ru> wrote:

> Yep. Unclear. What parameter is recommended for SSD? Lower? 3? 2? 1?
>
> Much better will be write: if you use SSD set 1.
>
> Олег
>
> > 19 марта 2020 г., в 23:56, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> написал(а):
> >
> > On Thu, Feb 27, 2020 at 02:48:44PM +0000, PG Doc comments form wrote:
> >> The following documentation comment has been logged on the website:
> >>
> >> Page: https://www.postgresql.org/docs/12/runtime-config-query.html
> >> Description:
> >>
> >> Explanation for random_page_cost is rather outdated, because it did
> only for
> >> case of mechanical hdd. But all modern database servers, which I know,
> made
> >> upon SSD. Do or not do default value for random_page_cost equal to 1 is
> the
> >> question, but, IMHO, at list in the documentation about
> random_page_cost
> >> need to add in a speculation about SSD.
> >>
> >> It's important because a business programming now is mostly web
> programming.
> >> Most database is poorly designed by web programmer, tables looked like a
> >> primary key and a huge json (containing all) with large gin index upon
> it.
> >> Now I am seeing a table with a GIN index 50% of the table size. The
> database
> >> is on SSD, of cause. With default random_page_cost=4 GIN index don't
> used
> >> by planner, but with random_page_cost=1 the result may be not
> excellent, but
> >> acceptable for web programmers.
> >
> > Does this sentence in the random_page_cost docs unclear or not have
> enough
> > visibility:
> >
> >
> https://www.postgresql.org/docs/12/runtime-config-query.html#RUNTIME-CONFIG-QUERY-CONSTANTS
> >
> > 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.
> >
> > --
> > Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> https://momjian.us
> > EnterpriseDB https://enterprisedb.com
> >
> > + As you are, so once was I. As I am, so you will be. +
> > + Ancient Roman grave inscription +
>
>
>
>
>
>