Hi,
On 2023-01-17 15:52:07 +0100, Tomas Vondra wrote:
> I don't understand why we would even use timestamps, in this case? AFAIK
> "sampling profilers" simply increment a counter for the executing node,
> and then approximate the time as proportional to the count.
The timer interrupt distances aren't all that evenly spaced, particularly
under load, and are easily distorted by having to wait for IO, an lwlock ...
> That also does not have issues with timestamp "rounding" - considering
> e.g. sample rate 1000Hz, that's 1ms between samples. And it's quite
> possible the node completes within 1ms, in which case
>
> (now - last_sample)
>
> ends up being 0 (assuming I correctly understand the code).
That part should be counting in nanoseconds, I think? Unless I misunderstand
something?
We already compute the timestamp inside timeout.c, but don't yet pass that to
timeout handlers. I think there's others re-computing timestamps.
> And I don't think there's any particularly good way to correct this.
>
> It seems ExplainNode() attempts to do some correction, but I doubt
> that's very reliable, as these fast nodes will have sampled_total=0, so
> no matter what you multiply this with, it'll still be 0.
That's just the scaling to the "actual time" that you're talking about above,
no?
> > I've been thinking that we should consider making more of the instrumentation
> > code work like that. The amount of work we're doing in InstrStart/StopNode()
> > has steadily risen. When buffer usage and WAL usage are enabled, we're
> > executing over 1000 instructions! And each single Instrumentation node is ~450
> > bytes, to a good degree due to having 2 BufUsage and 2 WalUsage structs
> > embedded.
> >
> > If we instead have InstrStartNode() set up a global pointer to the
> > Instrumentation node, we can make the instrumentation code modify both the
> > "global" counters (pgBufferUsage, pgWalUsage) and, if set,
> > current_instr->{pgBufferUsage, pgWalUsage}. That'll require some larger
> > changes - right now nodes "automatically" include the IO/WAL incurred in child
> > nodes, but that's just a small bit of additional summin-up to be done during
> > EXPLAIN.
> >
>
> That's certainly one way to implement that. I wonder if we could make
> that work without the global pointer, but I can't think of any.
I don't see a realistic way at least. We could pass down an
"InstrumentationContext" through everything that needs to do IO and WAL. But
that seems infeasible at this point.
Greetings,
Andres Freund
