Re: Reduce timing overhead of EXPLAIN ANALYZE using rdtsc?
vignesh C <vignesh21@gmail.com>
From: vignesh C <vignesh21@gmail.com>
To: David Geier <geidav.pg@gmail.com>
Cc: Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>,
Pavel Stehule <pavel.stehule@gmail.com>, Tomas Vondra <tomas.vondra@enterprisedb.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: 2024-01-20T03:33:47Z
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
On Mon, 20 Feb 2023 at 16:06, David Geier <geidav.pg@gmail.com> wrote: > > Hi! > > On 2/14/23 13:48, David Geier wrote: > > > > It still fails. > > > > I'll get Cirrus-CI working on my own Github fork so I can make sure it > > really compiles on all platforms before I submit a new version. > > It took some time until Cirrus CI allowed me to run tests against my new > GitHub account (there's a 3 days freeze to avoid people from getting > Cirrus CI nodes to mine bitcoins :-D). Attached now the latest patch > which passes builds, rebased on latest master. > > I also reviewed the first two patches a while ago in [1]. I hope we can > progress with them to further reduce the size of this patch set. > > Beyond that: I could work on support for more OSs (e.g. starting with > Windows). Is there appetite for that or do we rather want to instead > start with a smaller patch? Are we planning to continue on this and take it further? I'm seeing that there has been no activity in this thread for nearly 1 year now, I'm planning to close this in the current commitfest unless someone is planning to take it forward. Regards, Vignesh