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 18:33:41 |
Message-ID: | 3120723.1719945221@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:
> At least "does it run" tests should be there -
> For example with the current toolchain on MacOS I was able to compile
> __builtin_readcyclecounter(); but it crashed when the result was
> executed.
> The same code compiled *and run* fine on same laptop with Ubuntu 24.04
> We might also want to have some testing about available speedups from
> pg_bitmanip.h being used, but that could be tricky to test in an
> universal way.
Keep in mind that pg_test_timing is not just some random exercise in a
vacuum. The point of it IMV is to provide data about the performance
one can expect from the instr_time.h infrastructure, which bears on
what kind of resolution EXPLAIN ANALYZE and other features have. So
if we did want to depend on read_tsc() or __builtin_readcyclecounter()
or what-have-you, the way to go about it would be to change
instr_time.h to compile code that uses that. I would consider that
to be a separate patch from what we're doing to pg_test_timing here.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2024-07-02 18:37:25 | Re: On disable_cost |
Previous Message | Hannu Krosing | 2024-07-02 18:15:59 | Re: What is a typical precision of gettimeofday()? |