| From: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, David Geier <geidav(dot)pg(at)gmail(dot)com>, vignesh C <vignesh21(at)gmail(dot)com>, Lukas Fittl <lukas(at)fittl(dot)com>, Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>, Ibrar Ahmed <ibrar(dot)ahmad(at)gmail(dot)com>, Maciek Sakrejda <m(dot)sakrejda(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Reduce timing overhead of EXPLAIN ANALYZE using rdtsc? |
| Date: | 2023-01-21 03:54:56 |
| Message-ID: | 20230121035456.pflxb5leiy4waahl@awork3.anarazel.de |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Hi,
On 2023-01-20 22:27:07 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> writes:
> >> Perhaps an INSTR_TIME_ZERO() that could be assigned in variable definitions
> >> could give us the best of both worlds?
>
> > I tried that in the attached 0005. I found that it reads better if I also add
> > INSTR_TIME_CURRENT(). If we decide to go for this, I'd roll it into 0001
> > instead, but I wanted to get agreement on it first.
>
> -1 from here. This forecloses the possibility that it's best to use more
> than one assignment to initialize the value, and the code doesn't read
> any better than it did before.
I think it does read a bit better, but it's a pretty small improvement. So
I'll leave this aspect be for now.
Thanks for checking.
Greetings,
Andres Freund
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andres Freund | 2023-01-21 04:12:00 | Re: Reduce timing overhead of EXPLAIN ANALYZE using rdtsc? |
| Previous Message | Michael Paquier | 2023-01-21 03:35:52 | Re: Generating code for query jumbling through gen_node_support.pl |