Does a single-line result in shorter average queue time?
$begingroup$
Set-up:
Travelers are waiting in line to be processed by immigration officers. There are N officers, each with their own counter. No assumptions about line-switching, constant processing speed, homogeneous processing speed, or homogeneous entrance rate of travelers.
Scenario A: Travelers line up in one of 3 lines, each line leading to one of the 3 counters.
Scenario B: Travelers line up in a single line. The person at the head of the line will be directed to the next available officer.
Additional assumption: All officers will be at 100% utilization rate.
I argue that average queue time will be the same in both scenarios. Many co-workers, friends, and the following quotes disagree and believe that Scenario B (single-line) will result in a shorter average queue time.
Who's right?
"Finally, a single-line, multiple-server system has better performance in terms of waiting times than the same system with a line for each server." - Reid, Sanders; Operations Management
"Research has proven that a single line, multi-server waiting system is faster than the multiple line approach." - http://blog.lavi.com/2014/08/07/single-line-queue/
"A Long Line for a Shorter Wait at the Supermarket" - http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/23/business/23checkout.html
queueing-theory
asked Jan 27 '17 at 23:00
BerBer
212
$endgroup$
|
show 2 more comments
$begingroup$
Set-up:
Travelers are waiting in line to be processed by immigration officers. There are N officers, each with their own counter. No assumptions about line-switching, constant processing speed, homogeneous processing speed, or homogeneous entrance rate of travelers.
Scenario A: Travelers line up in one of 3 lines, each line leading to one of the 3 counters.
Scenario B: Travelers line up in a single line. The person at the head of the line will be directed to the next available officer.
Additional assumption: All officers will be at 100% utilization rate.
I argue that average queue time will be the same in both scenarios. Many co-workers, friends, and the following quotes disagree and believe that Scenario B (single-line) will result in a shorter average queue time.
Who's right?
"Finally, a single-line, multiple-server system has better performance in terms of waiting times than the same system with a line for each server." - Reid, Sanders; Operations Management
"Research has proven that a single line, multi-server waiting system is faster than the multiple line approach." - http://blog.lavi.com/2014/08/07/single-line-queue/
"A Long Line for a Shorter Wait at the Supermarket" - http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/23/business/23checkout.html
queueing-theory
asked Jan 27 '17 at 23:00
BerBer
212
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
McDonald's had tested this and their data says that multiple lines results in shorter average wait times. However, some line waiters find multiple lines more stressful as they start to worry about being in the slower line.
$endgroup$
– Doug M
Jan 27 '17 at 23:03
$begingroup$
I think your additional assumption weighs the scales somewhat — one likely advantage of Scenario B is that it does a better job of keeping the utilization rate up.
$endgroup$
– Micah
Jan 27 '17 at 23:11
$begingroup$
They are certainly not always the same, as you can show directly from a simple M/M/1 type example. In general, you can upper-bound the total "unfinished work" $U_{single}(t)$ at any time $t$ in the single line system by $U_{single}(t) leq U_{other}(t) + (n-1)L_{max}$, where $U_{other}(t)$ is the total unfinished work using any other (possibly multi-line) approach, $n$ is the number of (possibly time-varying) servers, and $L_{max}$ is the size of the largest job. This is equation (3) here: www-bcf.usc.edu/~mjneely/pdf_papers/…
$endgroup$
– Michael
Jan 27 '17 at 23:16
1
$begingroup$
How can you assume $100$ percent utilization rate if there might be a point at which there are no more travelers? Note that in most such systems, it is never the case in Scenario B that a customer is waiting and a server is idle, but it is possible in Scenario A.
$endgroup$
– Brian Tung
Jan 27 '17 at 23:36
$begingroup$
In light of that, I wonder, @DougM, how that result obtains. Maybe the servers work faster because they're competing (in a friendly way, one hopes) to clear their lines faster than their colleagues.
$endgroup$
– Brian Tung
Jan 27 '17 at 23:37
|
show 2 more comments
$begingroup$
Set-up:
Travelers are waiting in line to be processed by immigration officers. There are N officers, each with their own counter. No assumptions about line-switching, constant processing speed, homogeneous processing speed, or homogeneous entrance rate of travelers.
Scenario A: Travelers line up in one of 3 lines, each line leading to one of the 3 counters.
Scenario B: Travelers line up in a single line. The person at the head of the line will be directed to the next available officer.
Additional assumption: All officers will be at 100% utilization rate.
I argue that average queue time will be the same in both scenarios. Many co-workers, friends, and the following quotes disagree and believe that Scenario B (single-line) will result in a shorter average queue time.
Who's right?
"Finally, a single-line, multiple-server system has better performance in terms of waiting times than the same system with a line for each server." - Reid, Sanders; Operations Management
"Research has proven that a single line, multi-server waiting system is faster than the multiple line approach." - http://blog.lavi.com/2014/08/07/single-line-queue/
"A Long Line for a Shorter Wait at the Supermarket" - http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/23/business/23checkout.html
queueing-theory
asked Jan 27 '17 at 23:00
BerBer
212
$endgroup$
Set-up:
Travelers are waiting in line to be processed by immigration officers. There are N officers, each with their own counter. No assumptions about line-switching, constant processing speed, homogeneous processing speed, or homogeneous entrance rate of travelers.
Scenario A: Travelers line up in one of 3 lines, each line leading to one of the 3 counters.
Scenario B: Travelers line up in a single line. The person at the head of the line will be directed to the next available officer.
Additional assumption: All officers will be at 100% utilization rate.
I argue that average queue time will be the same in both scenarios. Many co-workers, friends, and the following quotes disagree and believe that Scenario B (single-line) will result in a shorter average queue time.
Who's right?
"Finally, a single-line, multiple-server system has better performance in terms of waiting times than the same system with a line for each server." - Reid, Sanders; Operations Management
"Research has proven that a single line, multi-server waiting system is faster than the multiple line approach." - http://blog.lavi.com/2014/08/07/single-line-queue/
"A Long Line for a Shorter Wait at the Supermarket" - http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/23/business/23checkout.html
queueing-theory
queueing-theory
asked Jan 27 '17 at 23:00
BerBer
212
asked Jan 27 '17 at 23:00
BerBer
212
asked Jan 27 '17 at 23:00
BerBer
212
asked Jan 27 '17 at 23:00
BerBer
212
asked Jan 27 '17 at 23:00
BerBer
212
212
$begingroup$
McDonald's had tested this and their data says that multiple lines results in shorter average wait times. However, some line waiters find multiple lines more stressful as they start to worry about being in the slower line.
$endgroup$
– Doug M
Jan 27 '17 at 23:03
$begingroup$
I think your additional assumption weighs the scales somewhat — one likely advantage of Scenario B is that it does a better job of keeping the utilization rate up.
$endgroup$
– Micah
Jan 27 '17 at 23:11
$begingroup$
They are certainly not always the same, as you can show directly from a simple M/M/1 type example. In general, you can upper-bound the total "unfinished work" $U_{single}(t)$ at any time $t$ in the single line system by $U_{single}(t) leq U_{other}(t) + (n-1)L_{max}$, where $U_{other}(t)$ is the total unfinished work using any other (possibly multi-line) approach, $n$ is the number of (possibly time-varying) servers, and $L_{max}$ is the size of the largest job. This is equation (3) here: www-bcf.usc.edu/~mjneely/pdf_papers/…
$endgroup$
– Michael
Jan 27 '17 at 23:16
1
$begingroup$
How can you assume $100$ percent utilization rate if there might be a point at which there are no more travelers? Note that in most such systems, it is never the case in Scenario B that a customer is waiting and a server is idle, but it is possible in Scenario A.
$endgroup$
– Brian Tung
Jan 27 '17 at 23:36
$begingroup$
In light of that, I wonder, @DougM, how that result obtains. Maybe the servers work faster because they're competing (in a friendly way, one hopes) to clear their lines faster than their colleagues.
$endgroup$
– Brian Tung
Jan 27 '17 at 23:37
|
show 2 more comments
$begingroup$
McDonald's had tested this and their data says that multiple lines results in shorter average wait times. However, some line waiters find multiple lines more stressful as they start to worry about being in the slower line.
$endgroup$
– Doug M
Jan 27 '17 at 23:03
$begingroup$
I think your additional assumption weighs the scales somewhat — one likely advantage of Scenario B is that it does a better job of keeping the utilization rate up.
$endgroup$
– Micah
Jan 27 '17 at 23:11
$begingroup$
They are certainly not always the same, as you can show directly from a simple M/M/1 type example. In general, you can upper-bound the total "unfinished work" $U_{single}(t)$ at any time $t$ in the single line system by $U_{single}(t) leq U_{other}(t) + (n-1)L_{max}$, where $U_{other}(t)$ is the total unfinished work using any other (possibly multi-line) approach, $n$ is the number of (possibly time-varying) servers, and $L_{max}$ is the size of the largest job. This is equation (3) here: www-bcf.usc.edu/~mjneely/pdf_papers/…
$endgroup$
– Michael
Jan 27 '17 at 23:16
1
$begingroup$
How can you assume $100$ percent utilization rate if there might be a point at which there are no more travelers? Note that in most such systems, it is never the case in Scenario B that a customer is waiting and a server is idle, but it is possible in Scenario A.
$endgroup$
– Brian Tung
Jan 27 '17 at 23:36
$begingroup$
In light of that, I wonder, @DougM, how that result obtains. Maybe the servers work faster because they're competing (in a friendly way, one hopes) to clear their lines faster than their colleagues.
$endgroup$
– Brian Tung
Jan 27 '17 at 23:37
$begingroup$
McDonald's had tested this and their data says that multiple lines results in shorter average wait times. However, some line waiters find multiple lines more stressful as they start to worry about being in the slower line.
$endgroup$
– Doug M
Jan 27 '17 at 23:03
$begingroup$
McDonald's had tested this and their data says that multiple lines results in shorter average wait times. However, some line waiters find multiple lines more stressful as they start to worry about being in the slower line.
$endgroup$
– Doug M
Jan 27 '17 at 23:03
$begingroup$
I think your additional assumption weighs the scales somewhat — one likely advantage of Scenario B is that it does a better job of keeping the utilization rate up.
$endgroup$
– Micah
Jan 27 '17 at 23:11
$begingroup$
I think your additional assumption weighs the scales somewhat — one likely advantage of Scenario B is that it does a better job of keeping the utilization rate up.
$endgroup$
– Micah
Jan 27 '17 at 23:11
$begingroup$
They are certainly not always the same, as you can show directly from a simple M/M/1 type example. In general, you can upper-bound the total "unfinished work" $U_{single}(t)$ at any time $t$ in the single line system by $U_{single}(t) leq U_{other}(t) + (n-1)L_{max}$, where $U_{other}(t)$ is the total unfinished work using any other (possibly multi-line) approach, $n$ is the number of (possibly time-varying) servers, and $L_{max}$ is the size of the largest job. This is equation (3) here: www-bcf.usc.edu/~mjneely/pdf_papers/…
$endgroup$
– Michael
Jan 27 '17 at 23:16
$begingroup$
They are certainly not always the same, as you can show directly from a simple M/M/1 type example. In general, you can upper-bound the total "unfinished work" $U_{single}(t)$ at any time $t$ in the single line system by $U_{single}(t) leq U_{other}(t) + (n-1)L_{max}$, where $U_{other}(t)$ is the total unfinished work using any other (possibly multi-line) approach, $n$ is the number of (possibly time-varying) servers, and $L_{max}$ is the size of the largest job. This is equation (3) here: www-bcf.usc.edu/~mjneely/pdf_papers/…
$endgroup$
– Michael
Jan 27 '17 at 23:16
1
1
$begingroup$
How can you assume $100$ percent utilization rate if there might be a point at which there are no more travelers? Note that in most such systems, it is never the case in Scenario B that a customer is waiting and a server is idle, but it is possible in Scenario A.
$endgroup$
– Brian Tung
Jan 27 '17 at 23:36
$begingroup$
How can you assume $100$ percent utilization rate if there might be a point at which there are no more travelers? Note that in most such systems, it is never the case in Scenario B that a customer is waiting and a server is idle, but it is possible in Scenario A.
$endgroup$
– Brian Tung
Jan 27 '17 at 23:36
$begingroup$
In light of that, I wonder, @DougM, how that result obtains. Maybe the servers work faster because they're competing (in a friendly way, one hopes) to clear their lines faster than their colleagues.
$endgroup$
– Brian Tung
Jan 27 '17 at 23:37
$begingroup$
In light of that, I wonder, @DougM, how that result obtains. Maybe the servers work faster because they're competing (in a friendly way, one hopes) to clear their lines faster than their colleagues.
$endgroup$
– Brian Tung
Jan 27 '17 at 23:37
|
show 2 more comments
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
The average waiting time (mathematical expectation) is the same but the variation of waiting time for a single line is smaller than that of multiple lines (easy to demonstrate mathematically). Thus a risk-averse person would prefer a single line. The intuition is: if you end up in a faster server your time of waiting is much shortened; if you end up in a slow server then your time of waiting is much prolonged (multiplied by the number of people ahead of you plus you). For a single line, your waiting time is simply the server's speed, it is not exacerbated.
answered Nov 2 '18 at 18:48
Snow MountainSnow Mountain
1
$endgroup$
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function () {
StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix) {
StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
});
});
}, "mathjax-editing");
StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "69"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});
function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: true,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: 10,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});
}
});
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f2117151%2fdoes-a-single-line-result-in-shorter-average-queue-time%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
The average waiting time (mathematical expectation) is the same but the variation of waiting time for a single line is smaller than that of multiple lines (easy to demonstrate mathematically). Thus a risk-averse person would prefer a single line. The intuition is: if you end up in a faster server your time of waiting is much shortened; if you end up in a slow server then your time of waiting is much prolonged (multiplied by the number of people ahead of you plus you). For a single line, your waiting time is simply the server's speed, it is not exacerbated.
answered Nov 2 '18 at 18:48
Snow MountainSnow Mountain
1
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
The average waiting time (mathematical expectation) is the same but the variation of waiting time for a single line is smaller than that of multiple lines (easy to demonstrate mathematically). Thus a risk-averse person would prefer a single line. The intuition is: if you end up in a faster server your time of waiting is much shortened; if you end up in a slow server then your time of waiting is much prolonged (multiplied by the number of people ahead of you plus you). For a single line, your waiting time is simply the server's speed, it is not exacerbated.
answered Nov 2 '18 at 18:48
Snow MountainSnow Mountain
1
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
The average waiting time (mathematical expectation) is the same but the variation of waiting time for a single line is smaller than that of multiple lines (easy to demonstrate mathematically). Thus a risk-averse person would prefer a single line. The intuition is: if you end up in a faster server your time of waiting is much shortened; if you end up in a slow server then your time of waiting is much prolonged (multiplied by the number of people ahead of you plus you). For a single line, your waiting time is simply the server's speed, it is not exacerbated.
answered Nov 2 '18 at 18:48
Snow MountainSnow Mountain
1
$endgroup$
The average waiting time (mathematical expectation) is the same but the variation of waiting time for a single line is smaller than that of multiple lines (easy to demonstrate mathematically). Thus a risk-averse person would prefer a single line. The intuition is: if you end up in a faster server your time of waiting is much shortened; if you end up in a slow server then your time of waiting is much prolonged (multiplied by the number of people ahead of you plus you). For a single line, your waiting time is simply the server's speed, it is not exacerbated.
answered Nov 2 '18 at 18:48
Snow MountainSnow Mountain
1
answered Nov 2 '18 at 18:48
Snow MountainSnow Mountain
1
answered Nov 2 '18 at 18:48
Snow MountainSnow Mountain
1
answered Nov 2 '18 at 18:48
Snow MountainSnow Mountain
1
1
add a comment |
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to Mathematics Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f2117151%2fdoes-a-single-line-result-in-shorter-average-queue-time%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
$begingroup$
McDonald's had tested this and their data says that multiple lines results in shorter average wait times. However, some line waiters find multiple lines more stressful as they start to worry about being in the slower line.
$endgroup$
– Doug M
Jan 27 '17 at 23:03
$begingroup$
I think your additional assumption weighs the scales somewhat — one likely advantage of Scenario B is that it does a better job of keeping the utilization rate up.
$endgroup$
– Micah
Jan 27 '17 at 23:11
$begingroup$
They are certainly not always the same, as you can show directly from a simple M/M/1 type example. In general, you can upper-bound the total "unfinished work" $U_{single}(t)$ at any time $t$ in the single line system by $U_{single}(t) leq U_{other}(t) + (n-1)L_{max}$, where $U_{other}(t)$ is the total unfinished work using any other (possibly multi-line) approach, $n$ is the number of (possibly time-varying) servers, and $L_{max}$ is the size of the largest job. This is equation (3) here: www-bcf.usc.edu/~mjneely/pdf_papers/…
$endgroup$
– Michael
Jan 27 '17 at 23:16
1
$begingroup$
How can you assume $100$ percent utilization rate if there might be a point at which there are no more travelers? Note that in most such systems, it is never the case in Scenario B that a customer is waiting and a server is idle, but it is possible in Scenario A.
$endgroup$
– Brian Tung
Jan 27 '17 at 23:36
$begingroup$
In light of that, I wonder, @DougM, how that result obtains. Maybe the servers work faster because they're competing (in a friendly way, one hopes) to clear their lines faster than their colleagues.
$endgroup$
– Brian Tung
Jan 27 '17 at 23:37