Re: Reduce timing overhead of EXPLAIN ANALYZE using rdtsc? - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From David Geier
Subject Re: Reduce timing overhead of EXPLAIN ANALYZE using rdtsc?
Date
Msg-id b929cab3-c07f-6d89-5a5f-35d5e5e9ba8a@gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Reduce timing overhead of EXPLAIN ANALYZE using rdtsc?  (Pavel Stehule <pavel.stehule@gmail.com>)
Responses Re: Reduce timing overhead of EXPLAIN ANALYZE using rdtsc?
List pgsql-hackers
On 1/16/23 21:39, Pavel Stehule wrote:
>
> po 16. 1. 2023 v 21:34 odesílatel Tomas Vondra 
> <tomas.vondra@enterprisedb.com> napsal:
>
>     Hi,
>
>     there's minor bitrot in the Mkvcbuild.pm change, making cfbot unhappy.
>
>     As for the patch, I don't have much comments. I'm wondering if it'd be
>     useful to indicate which timing source was actually used for EXPLAIN
>     ANALYZE, say something like:
>
>      Planning time: 0.197 ms
>      Execution time: 0.225 ms
>      Timing source: clock_gettime (or tsc)
>
>     There has been a proposal to expose this as a GUC (or perhaps as
>     explain
>     option), to allow users to pick what timing source to use. I
>     wouldn't go
>     that far - AFAICS is this is meant to be universally better when
>     available. But knowing which source was used seems useful.
>
>
> +1

Thanks for looking at the patch.

I'll fix the merge conflict.

I like the idea of exposing the timing source in the EXPLAIN ANALYZE output.
It's a good tradeoff between inspectability and effort, given that RDTSC 
should always be better to use.
If there are no objections I go this way.

-- 
David Geier
(ServiceNow)




pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Andrew Dunstan
Date:
Subject: Re: Extracting cross-version-upgrade knowledge from buildfarm client
Next
From: David Geier
Date:
Subject: Re: Reduce timing overhead of EXPLAIN ANALYZE using rdtsc?