| From: | David Geier <geidav(dot)pg(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
| Cc: | Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com>, Tomas Vondra <tomas(dot)vondra(at)enterprisedb(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: | 2023-01-23 17:23:17 |
| Message-ID: | b1aff6c5-53a8-65af-2d3e-71ff2c96b0da@gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Hi,
On 1/21/23 05:14, Andres Freund wrote:
> The elapsed time is already inherently unstable, so we shouldn't have any test
> output showing the time.
>
> But I doubt showing it in every explain is a good idea - we use instr_time in
> plenty of other places. Why show it in explain, but not in all those other
> places?
Yeah. I thought it would only be an issue if we showed it
unconditionally in EXPLAIN ANALYZE. If we only show it with TIMING ON,
we're likely fine with pretty much all regression tests.
But given the different opinions, I'll leave it out in the new patch set
for the moment being.
--
David Geier
(ServiceNow)
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2023-01-23 17:23:20 | Re: [BUG] Autovacuum not dynamically decreasing cost_limit and cost_delay |
| Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2023-01-23 16:57:52 | Re: CREATEROLE users vs. role properties |