2016-08-25 13:46 GMT+09:00 Haribabu Kommi <kommi.harib...@gmail.com>:
> On Thu, Aug 25, 2016 at 6:57 AM, Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Wed, Aug 24, 2016 at 4:23 AM, Haribabu Kommi
>> <kommi.harib...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> Based on the performance impact with the additional timing calculations,
>>> we can decide the view default behavior, Are there any objections to the
>>> concept?
>>
>> There have been some other recent threads on extending the wait event
>> stuff.  If you haven't already read those, you should, because the
>> issues are closely related.  I think that timing LWLock waits will be
>> quite expensive.  I believe that what the Postgres Pro folks want to
>> do is add up the wait times or maybe keep a history of waits (though
>> maybe I'm wrong about that), but showing them in pg_stat_activity is
>> another idea.  That's likely to add some synchronization overhead
>> which might be even greater in this case than for a feature that just
>> publishes accumulated times, but maybe it's all a drop in the bucket
>> compared to the cost of calling gettimeofday() in the first place.
>
> Yes, I agree this is an issue for the cases where the wait time is smaller
> than the logic that is added to calculate the wait time. Even if we use
> clock_gettime with CLOCK_REALTIME_COARSE there will be some
> overhead, as this clock method is 8 times faster than gettimeofday
> but not that accurate in result. May be we can use the clock_getime
> instead of gettimeofday in this case, as we may not needed the fine-grained
> value.

Is there any other option (rather than gettimeofday()) to measure elapsed
time with lower overhead?

I've heard about the RDTSC feature (hardware counter) supported by the recent
processors, and have found a few articles [1] [2] on its lower overhead than
gettimeofday().

[1] 
http://stackoverflow.com/questions/15623343/using-cpu-counters-versus-gettimeofday
[2] http://stackoverflow.com/questions/6498972/faster-equivalent-of-gettimeofday

I'm not sure how we can benefit from it so far, because I'm not
familiar with this
facility and of course I don't have the numbers. In addition to that,
I guess it would
bring some portability issues. But I'm still curious to know more
about these stuff.
Anyone has some experiences on it?

>> Personally, my preferred solution is still to have a background worker
>> that samples the published wait events and rolls up statistics, but
>> I'm not sure I've convinced anyone else.  It could report the number
>> of seconds since it detected a wait event other than the current one,
>> which is not precisely the same thing as tracking the length of the
>> current wait but it's pretty close.  I don't know for sure what's best
>> here - I think some experimentation and dialog is needed.
>
> Yes, using of background worker can reduce the load of adding all the
> wait time calculations in the main backend. I can give a try by modifying
> direct calculation approach and background worker (may be pg_stat_collector)
> to find the wait time based on the stat messages that are received from
> main backend related to wait start and wait end.
>
> I am not sure with out getting any signal or message from main backend,
> how much accurate the data can be gathered from a background worker.

It looks a sort of accuracy-performance trade-off.
So, I think the use-cases matter here to get a better design.

I guess that's the reason why llya is looking for feature requests from DBA
in another thread [3].

[3] 
https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/cag95seuaqvj09kzlwu%2bz1b-gqdmqerzekpfr3hn0q88xzmq...@mail.gmail.com

Regards,
-- 
Satoshi Nagayasu <sn...@uptime.jp>


-- 
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers

Reply via email to