Re: Reduce timing overhead of EXPLAIN ANALYZE using rdtsc?
David Geier <geidav.pg@gmail.com>
From: David Geier <geidav.pg@gmail.com>
To: Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>
Cc: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>,
vignesh C <vignesh21@gmail.com>, Lukas Fittl <lukas@fittl.com>,
Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz>, Ibrar Ahmed <ibrar.ahmad@gmail.com>,
Maciek Sakrejda <m.sakrejda@gmail.com>, pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
Date: 2023-01-26T11:21:13Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers
Commits
Same data as JSON:
GET /api/v1/messages/:b64id/commits
the thread's linked commits as JSON, with link sources.
API reference →
-
pg_test_timing: Also test RDTSC[P] timing, report time source, TSC frequency
- 16fca4825483 19 (unreleased) landed
-
Allow retrieving x86 TSC frequency/flags from CPUID
- bcb2cf41f964 19 (unreleased) landed
-
instrumentation: Standardize ticks to nanosecond conversion method
- 0022622c93d9 19 (unreleased) landed
-
instrumentation: Use Time-Stamp Counter on x86-64 to lower overhead
- 294520c44487 19 (unreleased) landed
-
Zero initialize uses of instr_time about to trigger compiler warnings
- 25b2aba0c3a5 16.0 landed
-
instr_time: Represent time as an int64 on all platforms
- 03023a2664f8 16.0 landed
-
Add 250c8ee07ed to git-blame-ignore-revs
- ff23b592ad66 16.0 cited
Hi, On 1/23/23 21:30, Andres Freund wrote: > That's been the case since my first post in the thread :). Mainly, it seems > easier to detect underflow cases during subtraction that way. And the factor > of 2 in range doesn't change a whole lot. I just realized it the other day :). >>>> If you have time to look at the pg_test_timing part, it'd be >>>> appreciated. That's a it larger, and nobody looked at it yet. So I'm a bit >>>> hesitant to push it. >>> I haven't yet pushed the pg_test_timing (nor it's small prerequisite) >>> patch. >>> >>> I've attached those two patches. Feel free to include them in your series if >>> you want, then the CF entry (and thus cfbot) makes sense again... >> I'll include them in my new patch set and also have a careful look at them. I reviewed the prerequisite patch which introduces INSTR_TIME_SET_SECONDS(), as well as the pg_test_timing patch. Here my comments: - The prerequisite patch looks good me. - By default, the test query in the pg_test_timing doc runs serially. What about adding SET max_parallel_workers_per_gather = 0 to make sure it really always does (e.g. on a system with different settings for parallel_tuple_cost / parallel_setup_cost)? Otherwise, the numbers will be much more flaky. - Why have you added a case distinction for diff == 0? Have you encountered this case? If so, how? Maybe add a comment. - To further reduce overhead we could call INSTR_TIME_SET_CURRENT() multiple times. But then again: why do we actually care about the per-loop time? Why not instead sum up diff and divide by the number of iterations to exclude all the overhead in the first place? - In the computation of the per-loop time in nanoseconds you can now use INSTR_TIME_GET_NANOSEC() instead of INSTR_TIME_GET_DOUBLE() * NS_PER_S. The rest looks good to me. The rebased patches are part of the patch set I sent out yesterday in reply to another mail in this thread. -- David Geier (ServiceNow)