Re: Reduce timing overhead of EXPLAIN ANALYZE using rdtsc?

On Tue, Apr 7, 2026 at 10:59 AM Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> On 2026-04-07 00:04:51 -0700, Lukas Fittl wrote:
> > Attached v22 with documentation updates. I've also marked the ARM
> > patch "nocfbot" for now, so its clear we're doing that one later.
>
> - changed comment in InitProcessGlobals to be consistent with other cases
> - added a comment to the fallthrough to the generic logic in x86_tsc_frequency_khz
> - started to wonder if we ought to report
> * The similar __get_cpuid_count function does not work as expected since
> * it contains a check for __get_cpuid_max, which has been observed to be
> as a bug. That's obviously independent of committing this.
>
> - a few typos (s/possibly/possible/, s/its/it's/, s/\. are/. Are/,
> INSTR_TIME_ADD_NANOSEC comment variable names) found with modern spell
> checking tools (i.e. an ai review)
>
> - fixed include order in guc_tables.c
>
> - slight rephrasing of pg_initialize_timing() comment about
> pg_set_timing_clock_source()
>
> - Moved the indexterm to the relevant paragraphs. I don't think it really
> matters, but it seemed a tad clearer
>
> - shortened some commit message titles ;)
>
> - Added a comment about why always_inline is needed for pg_get_ticks, and as
> part of that swapped _fast() and plain versions around.
>
> - I'm somewhat tired, because I was wondering whether TSC_CALIBRATION_SKIPS
> should be a power of 2, to make the check faster. But uh, IT DOESN'T MATTER
> :)
>
> I've pushed 0001, 0002, 0003.

Yay! Thank you for pushing :)

And thank you everyone on this thread for countless reviews, and to
David for writing some essential parts of this earlier.

*cautiously pours a celebratory beverage*

>
> There's one minor documentation issue in 0004 that I wanted to look at before
> pushing (and I need to switch to something else for a bit). The rephrasing
> gets rid of
>
> - [...] , with the worst case somewhere between 32768 and
> - 65535 nanoseconds. In the second block, we can see that typical loop
> - time is 16 nanoseconds, and the readings appear to have full nanosecond
> - precision.
>
> I don't mind loosing the first sentence, but the second one might be useful to
> somebody?

Hm, yeah, you're right. What if we word like this:

<para>
The example results below show system clock timing where 99.99% of loops
took between 16 and 63 nanoseconds. In the second block, we can see that
the typical loop time is 40 nanoseconds, and the readings appear to have
full nanosecond precision. Following the system clock results, the
<acronym>TSC</acronym> clock source results are shown. The
<command>RDTSCP</command> instruction shows most loops completing in
20&ndash;30 nanoseconds, while the <command>RDTSC</command> instruction
is the fastest with an average loop time of 20 nanoseconds. In this
example the <acronym>TSC</acronym> clock source will be used by default,
but can be disabled by setting <varname>timing_clock_source</varname> to
<literal>system</literal>.
</para>

Thanks,
Lukas

--
Lukas Fittl