Re: Reduce timing overhead of EXPLAIN ANALYZE using rdtsc?
Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>
From: Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>
To: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Cc: David Geier <geidav.pg@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 <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Date: 2023-01-13T20:59:33Z
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 2023-01-13 15:25:16 -0500, Tom Lane wrote: > Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de> writes: > > Does anybody see a reason to not move forward with this aspect? We do a fair > > amount of INSTR_TIME_ACCUM_DIFF() etc, and that gets a good bit cheaper by > > just using nanoseconds. > > Cheaper, and perhaps more accurate too? Don't recall if we have any code > paths where the input timestamps are likely to be better-than-microsecond, > but surely that's coming someday. instr_time on !WIN32 use struct timespec, so we already should have nanosecond precision available. IOW, we could add a INSTR_TIME_GET_NANOSEC today. Or am I misunderstanding what you mean? > I'm unsure that we want to deal with rdtsc's vagaries in general, but > no objection to changing instr_time. Cool. Looking at the instr_time.h part of the change, I think it should go further, and basically do the same thing in the WIN32 path. The only part that needs to be be win32 specific is INSTR_TIME_SET_CURRENT(). That'd reduce duplication a good bit. Greetings, Andres Freund