| From: | David Geier <geidav(dot)pg(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | 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: | 2023-01-19 10:47:49 |
| Message-ID: | 50c9f291-fc60-1d2e-e286-0fb888586e7e@gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Hi Andres,
> I also couldn't help and hacked a bit on the rdtsc pieces. I did figure out
> how to do the cycles->nanosecond conversion with integer shift and multiply in
> the common case, which does show a noticable speedup. But that's for another
> day.
I also have code for that here. I decided against integrating it because
we don't convert frequently enough to make it matter. Or am I missing
something?
> I fought a bit with myself about whether to send those patches in this thread,
> because it'll take over the CF entry. But decided that it's ok, given that
> David's patches should be rebased over these anyway?
That's alright.
Though, I would hope we attempt to bring your patch set as well as the
RDTSC patch set in.
--
David Geier
(ServiceNow)
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | vignesh C | 2023-01-19 10:54:50 | Re: Time delayed LR (WAS Re: logical replication restrictions) |
| Previous Message | Ashutosh Bapat | 2023-01-19 10:43:23 | Re: Logical replication timeout problem |