On 11/03/2016 15:11, Magnus Hagander wrote:
>
>
> On Fri, Mar 11, 2016 at 3:03 PM, Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net
> <mailto:magnus@hagander.net>> wrote:
>
>
>
> On Fri, Mar 11, 2016 at 2:51 PM, Julien Rouhaud
> <julien.rouhaud@dalibo.com <mailto:julien.rouhaud@dalibo.com>> wrote:
>
> On 11/03/2016 11:45, Magnus Hagander wrote:
> >
> > Coming back to the previous discussions about random() - AFAICT this
> > patch will introduce the random() call always (in explain_ExecutorStart):
> >
> > +if (auto_explain_log_min_duration >= 0 && nesting_level == 0)
> > +current_query_sampled = (random() < auto_explain_sample_ratio *
> > +MAX_RANDOM_VALUE);
> >
> >
> > Not sure what the overhead is, but wouldn't it be better to include a
> > check for current_query_sampled>0 in the if part of that statement?
> > Regardless of performance, that feels cleaner to me. Or am I missing
> > something?
>
> You mean check for auto_explain_sample_ratio > 0 ?
>
>
> I did, but I think what I should have meant is
> auto_explain_sample_ratio < 1.
>
>
>
> There would be a corner case if a query is sampled
> (current_query_sampled is true) and then
> auto_explain_sample_ratio is
> set to 0, all subsequent queries in this backend would be processed.
>
>
> There would have to be an else block as well of course, that set it
> back.
>
>
>
> We could add a specific test for this case to spare a random()
> call, but
> I fear it'd be overkill. Maybe it's better to document that the
> good way
> to deactivate auto_explain is to set
> auto_explain.log_min_duration to -1.
>
>
> I guess in the end it probably is - a general random() call is
> pretty cheap compared to all the things we're doing. I think my mind
> was stuck in crypto-random which can be more expensive :)
>
>
> Applied with a minor word-fix in the documentation and removal of some
> unrelated whitespace changes.
>
Thanks!
--
Julien Rouhaud
http://dalibo.com - http://dalibo.org