Martijn van Oosterhout <kleptog@svana.org> writes:
> On Fri, Jun 09, 2006 at 10:00:20AM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> I had thought we were applying an order-of-ten-percent correction by
>> subtracting SampleOverhead, not an order-of-10x correction :-(
> Eh? The whole point is to call gettimeofday() much less often. If you
> call it 1000th as often, then the correction is only on the order of
> one hundredth of the normal query time...
No, because the correction calculation is
totaltime += (average time per sampled execution - SampleOverhead) * (number of unsampled executions)
If SampleOverhead is 90% of the average time per sampled execution,
then you are multiplying something with a large component of
cancellation error by a possibly-large number.
As an example, using the numbers I posted here for my old PC:
http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2006-06/msg00407.php
the actual runtime is clearly about 1 usec per tuple but enabling
timing adds 8.5 usec per tuple. If we suppose we sampled
10000 out of 1 million rows, then we'd have
raw totaltime = 10000 * 9.5 usec = 95msec
avg time/execution = 9.5 usec
SampleOverhead = 8.5 usec
number of unsampled executions = 990000
correction = 990msec
which means that a 10% error in estimating SampleOverhead would
contribute as much to the final estimate as the actual measurement did.
regards, tom lane
