Smart queues, dumb queues and Metro queues

A shop - contains checkout queues

I've done a fair amount of work on queuing in my time, which is why I was very doubtful to see a Metro headline 'Why you're better queuing behind one person with a full trolley than people with baskets.' And I had good reason to be doubtful, because the argument was, well, total rubbish.

'Do you queue behind the person with a trolley filled to the brim, or do you wait behind the line of people in the "10 items or fewer" queue?' the article asked. Then it introduced Dan Meyer 'a former high school maths teacher' (a queuing expert, then), whose research tells us that transactions have a fixed time of 41 seconds, plus 3 seconds per item scanned.

'This means,' says the article, 'that queuing behind a line of people who have fewer things will take longer than a couple of people with full trolleys'. Again, I'm afraid, this is total garbage.

The article points out that one person buying 100 items will take 5 minutes 41 seconds, while four people with 20 items each will take 6 minutes 44 seconds to go through the till. This is true but irrelevant.

There are two big problems with this argument. Because of that 41 second overhead time, you can get through more items in the same time from a single trolley than lots of baskets. But I have never been in a basket queue with more than three or four people in front of me. And clearly they aren't going to have '20 items each', if it's a 10 items or fewer queue. Doh! Those four people with 10 items each (in practice some will have fewer than 10) will, according to Meyer's own numbers, only take 4 minutes 44 seconds to get through - so queue behind them, not the bloke with the full trolley.

The other problem with Meyer's analysis is that I can't think when I last went into a supermarket without self-checkout for baskets. These operate on the much more sophisticated single queue, multiple server system. So there may be five or six people in front of me in the queue - but we are waiting for 6 or 20 checkouts at my nearest supermarket (6 one end of the store, 20 the other*). Which means in practice you will be unlikely to have to wait for more than a few seconds to start scanning.

Three lessons then. The media, even the Metro, should think more about a maths or science based story before they publish it. Secondly, just because someone's an ex-maths teacher doesn't make him a queuing guru. And finally don't queue behind people with big trolleyfulls unless there's something seriously wrong with the basket checkouts.

* This is a much more interesting problem of which end to go to, as it is often quicker to go through the 6 checkout end, as far fewer people use it.

Comments

Why I hate opera

If I'm honest, the title of this post is an exaggeration to make a point. I don't really hate opera. There are a couple of operas - notably Monteverdi's Incoranazione di Poppea and Purcell's Dido & Aeneas - that I quite like. But what I do find truly sickening is the reverence with which opera is treated, as if it were some particularly great art form. Nowhere was this more obvious than in ITV's 2010 gut-wrenchingly awful series Pop Star to Opera Star , where the likes of Alan Tichmarsh treated the real opera singers as if they were fragile pieces on Antiques Roadshow, and the music as if it were a gift of the gods. In my opinion - and I know not everyone agrees - opera is: Mediocre music Melodramatic plots Amateurishly hammy acting A forced and unpleasant singing style Ridiculously over-supported by public funds I won't even bother to go into any detail on the plots and the acting - this is just self-evident. But the other aspects need some exp

Is 5x3 the same as 3x5?

The Internet has gone mildly bonkers over a child in America who was marked down in a test because when asked to work out 5x3 by repeated addition he/she used 5+5+5 instead of 3+3+3+3+3. Those who support the teacher say that 5x3 means 'five lots of 3' where the complainants say that 'times' is commutative (reversible) so the distinction is meaningless as 5x3 and 3x5 are indistinguishable. It's certainly true that not all mathematical operations are commutative. I think we are all comfortable that 5-3 is not the same as 3-5. However. This not true of multiplication (of numbers). And so if there is to be any distinction, it has to be in the use of English to interpret the 'x' sign. Unfortunately, even here there is no logical way of coming up with a definitive answer. I suspect most primary school teachers would expands 'times' as 'lots of' as mentioned above. So we get 5 x 3 as '5 lots of 3'. Unfortunately that only wor

Why backgammon is a better game than chess

I freely admit that chess, for those who enjoy it, is a wonderful game, but I honestly believe that as a game , backgammon is better (and this isn't just because I'm a lot better at playing backgammon than chess). Having relatively recently written a book on game theory, I have given quite a lot of thought to the nature of games, and from that I'd say that chess has two significant weaknesses compared with backgammon. One is the lack of randomness. Because backgammon includes the roll of the dice, it introduces a random factor into the play. Of course, a game that is totally random provides very little enjoyment. Tossing a coin isn't at all entertaining. But the clever thing about backgammon is that the randomness is contributory without dominating - there is still plenty of room for skill (apart from very flukey dice throws, I can always be beaten by a really good backgammon player), but the introduction of a random factor makes it more life-like, with more of a sense

Search This Blog