From: | Benoit T <benoit(dot)tigeot(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
Cc: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>, Sami Imseih <samimseih(at)gmail(dot)com>, Julien Rouhaud <rjuju123(at)gmail(dot)com>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: pg_stat_statements: Add `calls_aborted` counter for tracking query cancellations |
Date: | 2025-08-22 14:58:16 |
Message-ID: | 91EB8C15-5A15-4B07-A7CE-6133FB9948AC@gmail.com |
Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
> On 19 Aug 2025, at 15:46, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> wrote:
>
> I think it's pretty insane to do things like variance computation while
> holding a spinlock, for every friggin query execution. The spinlock'ed section
> is ~185 instructions for me, with plenty high-latency instructions like
> divisions.
>
> It's so slow that it has measurable impact for single threaded readonly
> pgbench. Which does friggin btree lookups.
Do you think it could be an option to first add regression benchmarks,
and then consider migrating the most time-consuming columns
to another extension?
Not sure moving results out of pgss could be an option.
---
Benoit
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2025-08-22 15:03:44 | Re: Identifying function-lookup failures due to argument name mismatches |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2025-08-22 14:37:24 | Re: misleading error message in ProcessUtilitySlow T_CreateStatsStmt |