From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Hannu Krosing <hannuk(at)google(dot)com> |
Cc: | Peter Eisentraut <peter(at)eisentraut(dot)org>, "Andrey M(dot) Borodin" <x4mmm(at)yandex-team(dot)ru>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: What is a typical precision of gettimeofday()? |
Date: | 2024-07-02 17:50:13 |
Message-ID: | 3115672.1719942613@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Hannu Krosing <hannuk(at)google(dot)com> writes:
> Also, reading directly in ticks on M1 gave "loop time including
> overhead: 2.13 ns" (attached code works on Clang, not sure about GCC)
I don't think we should mess with that, given the portability
problems you mentioned upthread.
> I'll also take a look at the docs and try to propose something
OK.
> Do we also need tests for this one ?
Yeah, it was annoying me that we are eating the overhead of a TAP test
for pg_test_timing and yet it covers barely a third of the code [1].
We obviously can't expect any specific numbers out of a test, but I
was contemplating running "pg_test_timing -d 1" and just checking for
(a) zero exit code and (b) the expected header lines in the output.
regards, tom lane
[1] https://coverage.postgresql.org/src/bin/pg_test_timing/pg_test_timing.c.gcov.html
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Robert Haas | 2024-07-02 17:54:02 | Re: On disable_cost |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2024-07-02 17:40:38 | Re: On disable_cost |