Re: pgbench logging broken by time logic changes

On Fri, Jul 9, 2021 at 5:15 AM Fabien COELHO <coelho(at)cri(dot)ensmp(dot)fr> wrote:
> > Thanks! This doesn't seem to address the complaint, though. Don't
> > you need to do something like this? (See also attached.)
> >
> > + initStats(&aggs, start - (start + epoch_shift) % 1000000);
>
> ISTM that this is: (start + epoch_shift) / 1000000 * 1000000

Sure, it's equivalent if you also change doLog() to match the change
in epoch, as your v16 did. Your version seems fine to me. The key
thing is that we only start new aggregates when the Unix epoch time
crosses over a XXX.000000 boundary, since we're only logging the XXX
part. That's much like(*) pgbench13, and I'm happy however you want
to code that. Case closed on that point. Thanks!

> > Isn't it better if we only have to throw away the first one?).
>
> This should be the user decision to drop it or not, not the tool producing
> it, IMO.

Let me try this complaint again. It's admittedly a minor detail, but
my goal in this thread is to match pgbench13's treatment of aggregate
boundaries and partial aggregates, so that we can close the open item
for 14 with a minimal fix that doesn't make any unnecessary changes.
Discussions about improvements or pre-existing problems can wait.

First, let me demonstrate that pgbench13 throws away final partial
aggregates. I hacked REL_13_STABLE like so:

if (agg_interval > 0)
{
/* log aggregated but not yet reported transactions */
+fprintf(thread->logfile, "XXX log aggregated but not yet reported
transactions: aggs.cnt = %ld\n", aggs.cnt);
doLog(thread, state, &aggs, false, 0, 0);
}
fclose(thread->logfile);

I ran pgbench -T6 --aggregate-interval 1 -l -S postgres, and it
produced a log file containing:

===BOF===
1625782245 7974 428574 24998642 49 683
1625782246 19165 998755 53217669 49 310
1625782247 19657 998868 51577774 47 189
1625782248 19707 998898 51660408 47 189
1625782249 19969 998867 50454999 48 156
1625782250 19845 998877 51071013 47 210
XXX log aggregated but not yet reported transactions: aggs.cnt = 10988
===EOF===

We can see three interesting things:

1. The first aggregate is partial (only ~7k transactions, because it
started partway through a second). Users have to throw away that
first aggregate because its statistics are noise. That is the price
to pay to have later aggregates start at the time they say.

2. We get 5 more full aggregates (~19k transactions). That's a total
of 6 aggregates, which makes intuitive sense with -T6.

3. At the end, the extra call to doLog() did nothing, and yet cnt =
10988. That's data we're throwing away, because Unix epoch time has
not advanced far enough to reach a new aggregate start time (it's not
impossible, but probability is very low). Checking the commit log, I
see that the code that claims to log the final aggregate came from
commit b6037664960 (2016); apparently it doesn't do what the comments
seem to think it does (did that ever work? Should perhaps be cleaned
up, but separately, it's not an open item for 14).

Now, in your recent patches you force that final partial aggregate to
be logged in that case with that new flag mechanism, as we can see:

===BOF===
1625783726 11823 609143 32170321 48 549
1625783727 19530 998995 52383115 47 210
1625783728 19468 999026 52208898 46 181
1625783729 19826 999001 51238427 46 185
1625783730 19195 999110 52841674 49 172
1625783731 18572 998992 56028876 48 318
1625783732 7484 388620 20951100 48 316
===EOF===

1. We get a partial initial aggregate just like 13. That sacrificial
aggregate helps us synchronize the rest of the aggregates with the
logged timestamps. Good.

2. We get 5 full aggregates (~19k transactions) just like 13. As in
13, that's quite likely, because the first one was "short" so we
almost always reach the end of the 6th one before -T6 runs out of
sand. Good.

3. We get a new partial aggregate at the end. Users would have to
throw that one away too. This is not a big deal, but it's a change in
behaviour that should be discussed.

Given that that last one is a waste of pixels and a (so far)
unjustified change in behaviour, I propose, this time with a little
more force and an updated patch, that we abandon that part of the
change. I submit that you only added that because your earlier
patches didn't have the partial aggregate at the start, so then it
often didn't produce the 6th line of output. So, you forced it to log
whatever it had left, even though the full time hadn't elapsed yet.
Now we don't need that.

The patch and resulting code are simpler, and the user experience matches 13.

See attached.

> > I don't really see the value in the test that checks that $delay falls
> > in the range 1.5s - 2.5s and then ignores the result. If it hangs
> > forever, we'll find out about it, and otherwise no human or machine
> > will ever care about that test. I removed it from this version. Were
> > you really attached to it?
>
> YES, REALLY! It would just have caught quite a few of the regressions we
> are trying to address here. I want it there even if ignored because I'll
> look for it to avoid regressions in the future. If the test is actually
> removed, recreating it is a pain. If you really want to disactivate it,
> use if(0) but PLEASE let it there so that it can ne reactivated for tests
> very simply, not bad maintaining some test outside of the tree.

Ok, you win :-)

> When/if you get to commit this patch, eventually, do not forget that I'm
> pushing forward fixes contributed by others, including Kyotaro Horiguchi
> and Yugo Nagata.

Fixed, thanks.

* I say "much like" and not "exactly like"; of course there may be a
subtle difference if ntpd adjusts your clock while a benchmark is
running. Something must give, and 14's coding prefers to keep the
duration of aggregates stable at exactly X seconds according to the
high precision timer, so that the statistics it reports are
meaningful, but 13 prefers to keep the timestamps it logs in sync with
other software using gettimeofday() and will give you a weird short or
long aggregate to achieve that (producing bad statistics). I can see
arguments for both but I'm OK with that change and I see that it is in
line with your general goal of switching to modern accurate time
interfaces.