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: Pavel Stehule <pavel.stehule@gmail.com>,
Tomas Vondra <tomas.vondra@enterprisedb.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: 2023-01-24T13:30:34Z
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
Attachments
- v7-0001-instr_time-Add-INSTR_TIME_SET_SECONDS-INSTR_TIME_.patch (text/x-patch) patch v7-0001
- v7-0002-wip-report-nanoseconds-in-pg_test_timing.patch (text/x-patch) patch v7-0002
- v7-0003-Use-RDTSC-P-instructions-to-measure-time-on-x86-L.patch (text/x-patch) patch v7-0003
Hi, On 1/23/23 18:41, Andres Freund wrote: > If we add it, it probably shouldn't depend on TIMING, but on > SUMMARY. Regression test queries showing EXPLAIN ANALYZE output all do > something like > EXPLAIN (ANALYZE, COSTS OFF, SUMMARY OFF, TIMING OFF) > > the SUMMARY OFF gets rid of the "top-level" "Planning Time" and "Execution > Time", whereas the TIMING OFF gets rid of the per-node timing. Those are > separate options because per-node timing is problematic performance-wise > (right now), but whole-query timing rarely is. Makes sense. I wasn't aware of SUMMARY. Let's keep this option in mind, in case we'll revisit exposing the clock source in the future. > Another, independent, thing worth thinking about: I think we might want to > expose both rdtsc and rdtscp. For something like > InstrStartNode()/InstrStopNode(), avoiding the "one-way barrier" of rdtscp is > quite important to avoid changing the query performance. But for measuring > whole-query time, we likely want to measure the actual time. > > It probably won't matter hugely for the whole query time - the out of order > window of modern CPUs is large, but not *that* large - but I don't think we > can generally assume that. That's what I thought as well. I added INSTR_TIME_SET_CURRENT_FAST() and for now call that variant from InstrStartNode(), InstrEndNode() and pg_test_timing. To do so in InstrEndNode(), I removed INSTR_TIME_SET_CURRENT_LAZY(). Otherwise, two variants of that macro would be needed. INSTR_TIME_SET_CURRENT_LAZY() was only used in a single place and the code is more readable that way. INSTR_TIME_SET_CURRENT() is called from a bunch of places. I still have to go through all of them and see which should be changed to call the _FAST() variant. Attached is v7 of the patch: - Rebased on latest master (most importantly on top of the int64 instr_time commits). - Includes two commits from Andres which introduce INSTR_TIME_SET_SECONDS(), INSTR_TIME_IS_LT() and WIP to report pg_test_timing output in nanoseconds. - Converts ticks to nanoseconds only with integer math, while accounting for overflow. - Supports RDTSCP via INSTR_TIME_SET_CURRENT() and introduced INSTR_TIME_SET_CURRENT_FAST() which uses RDTSC. I haven't gotten to the following: - Looking through all calls to INSTR_TIME_SET_CURRENT() and check if they should be replaced by INSTR_TIME_SET_CURRENT_FAST(). - Reviewing Andres commits. Potentially improving on pg_test_timing's output. - Looking at enabling RDTSC on more platforms. Is there a minimum set of platforms we would like support for? Windows should be easy. That would also allow to unify the code a little more. - Add more documentation and do more testing around the calls to CPUID. - Profiling and optimizing the code. A quick test showed about 10% improvement over master with TIMING ON vs TIMING OFF, when using the test-case from Andres' e-mail that started this thread. I hope I'll find time to work on these points during the next days. -- David Geier (ServiceNow)