On 1/16/23 21:39, Pavel Stehule wrote:
>
> po 16. 1. 2023 v 21:34 odesílatel Tomas Vondra
> <tomas.vondra@enterprisedb.com> napsal:
>
> Hi,
>
> there's minor bitrot in the Mkvcbuild.pm change, making cfbot unhappy.
>
> As for the patch, I don't have much comments. I'm wondering if it'd be
> useful to indicate which timing source was actually used for EXPLAIN
> ANALYZE, say something like:
>
> Planning time: 0.197 ms
> Execution time: 0.225 ms
> Timing source: clock_gettime (or tsc)
>
> There has been a proposal to expose this as a GUC (or perhaps as
> explain
> option), to allow users to pick what timing source to use. I
> wouldn't go
> that far - AFAICS is this is meant to be universally better when
> available. But knowing which source was used seems useful.
>
>
> +1
Thanks for looking at the patch.
I'll fix the merge conflict.
I like the idea of exposing the timing source in the EXPLAIN ANALYZE output.
It's a good tradeoff between inspectability and effort, given that RDTSC
should always be better to use.
If there are no objections I go this way.
--
David Geier
(ServiceNow)