| From: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
|---|---|
| To: | Lukas Fittl <lukas(at)fittl(dot)com> |
| Cc: | David Geier <geidav(dot)pg(at)gmail(dot)com>, Jakub Wartak <jakub(dot)wartak(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Hannu Krosing <hannuk(at)google(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com>, vignesh C <vignesh21(at)gmail(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: | 2026-02-13 00:41:22 |
| Message-ID: | aY5Si7r2SMe4fRPc@alap3.anarazel.de |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Hi,
On 2026-02-12 08:05:27 -0800, Lukas Fittl wrote:
> On master (88327092ff0), I'm getting 23.54 ns from pg_test_timing - vs
> with 0002 applied, this slows to 25.74 ns. I've tried to see if the
> "unlikely(..)" we added in pg_ticks_to_ns is the problem (since in the
> clock_gettime() case we'd always be running into that branch due to
> the size of the nanoseconds value), but no luck - I think the extra
> multiplication/division itself is the problem.
>
> Any ideas how we could do this differently?
The problem looks to be that you're going to take the slowpath when using
clock_gettime(), unless you booted within the last three days, because
pg_test_timing() is doing
INSTR_TIME_SET_CURRENT(temp);
cur = INSTR_TIME_GET_NANOSEC(temp);
Which will require reducing time-since-boot in nanoseconds (with
CLOCK_MONOTONIC) via pg_ticks_to_ns() overflow logic, as the way
max_ticks_no_overflow is set in 0001, it'll overflow after a few days of
runtime.
This can largely be addressed by keeping prev and cur in the instr_time
domain and only converting the difference to nanoseconds.
I wonder if pg_test_timing should have a small loop with a fixed count to
determine the timing without all the overhead the existing loop has...
Greetings,
Andres Freund
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andres Freund | 2026-02-13 00:51:18 | Re: Replace literal 0 values with the appropriate Invalid* constants |
| Previous Message | Chao Li | 2026-02-13 00:31:55 | Re: Odd usage of errmsg_internal in bufmgr.c |