Re: Reduce timing overhead of EXPLAIN ANALYZE using rdtsc?
Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>
Hi, On 2026-04-07 00:04:51 -0700, Lukas Fittl wrote: > Attached v22 with documentation updates. I've also marked the ARM > patch "nocfbot" for now, so its clear we're doing that one later. - changed comment in InitProcessGlobals to be consistent with other cases - added a comment to the fallthrough to the generic logic in x86_tsc_frequency_khz - started to wonder if we ought to report * The similar __get_cpuid_count function does not work as expected since * it contains a check for __get_cpuid_max, which has been observed to be as a bug. That's obviously independent of committing this. - a few typos (s/possibly/possible/, s/its/it's/, s/\. are/. Are/, INSTR_TIME_ADD_NANOSEC comment variable names) found with modern spell checking tools (i.e. an ai review) - fixed include order in guc_tables.c - slight rephrasing of pg_initialize_timing() comment about pg_set_timing_clock_source() - Moved the indexterm to the relevant paragraphs. I don't think it really matters, but it seemed a tad clearer - shortened some commit message titles ;) - Added a comment about why always_inline is needed for pg_get_ticks, and as part of that swapped _fast() and plain versions around. - I'm somewhat tired, because I was wondering whether TSC_CALIBRATION_SKIPS should be a power of 2, to make the check faster. But uh, IT DOESN'T MATTER :) I've pushed 0001, 0002, 0003. There's one minor documentation issue in 0004 that I wanted to look at before pushing (and I need to switch to something else for a bit). The rephrasing gets rid of - [...] , with the worst case somewhere between 32768 and - 65535 nanoseconds. In the second block, we can see that typical loop - time is 16 nanoseconds, and the readings appear to have full nanosecond - precision. I don't mind loosing the first sentence, but the second one might be useful to somebody? > > Now I wonder if we should rename 'tsc' to 'cpu'... > > Yeah, I had proposed making it more generic in an earlier email, but I > don't think there are great names available (and nobody jumped at the > suggestion). I think "cpu" is a bit too unspecific, vs "tsc" is more > clearly referencing the kind of instruction being used directly, and > is unique enough that it makes people read on vs jumping to a > conclusion. I was previously thinking of something like "hwtimer" or > "hwclock", but I don't think those are great. > > I think the worst case here is that we need to add a "Note this is > named after the TSC instructions on x86-64, but utilizes the similarly > functioning cntvct_el0 instruction on ARM." or something to the > documentation if/when we expand support to ARM. Yea, I think it's ok. Greetings, Andres Freund
Commits
GET /api/v1/messages/:b64id/commits
the thread's linked commits as JSON, with link sources.
API reference →
-
pg_test_timing: Show additional TSC clock source debug info
- 5ba34f6dc838 19 (unreleased) landed
-
instrumentation: Avoid CPUID 0x15/0x16 for Hypervisor TSC frequency
- 7fc36c5db550 19 (unreleased) landed
-
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
-
Check for __cpuidex and __get_cpuid_count separately
- effaa464afd3 19 (unreleased) landed
-
pg_test_timing: Reduce per-loop overhead
- 82c0cb4e672d 19 (unreleased) landed
-
Refactor handling of x86 CPUID instructions
- be6a7494d2e3 19 (unreleased) landed
-
instrumentation: Drop INSTR_TIME_SET_CURRENT_LAZY macro
- 9d6294c09ed0 19 (unreleased) landed
-
Rename pg_crc32c_sse42_choose.c for general purpose
- b9278871f991 19 (unreleased) cited
-
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