From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>
Cc: Amit Khandekar <amitdkhan.pg@gmail.com>
Cc: Andreas Joseph Krogh <andreas@visena.com>
Cc: Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>
Cc: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com>
Cc: Jonathan S. Katz <jkatz@postgresql.org>
Cc: PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: Query is over 2x slower with jit=on
Date: Wed, 19 Sep 2018 23:26:52 -0400
Message-ID: <11291.1537414012@sss.pgh.pa.us> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20180919224047.mcdjwis56ywqzhzs@alap3.anarazel.de>
References: <20180822161241.je6nghzjsktbb57b@alap3.anarazel.de>
<VisenaEmail.27.cb06f4d2cef742ad.165627feef4@tc7-visena>
<20180822165155.tjbib4pewnbiyy4x@alap3.anarazel.de>
<CAJ3gD9cv2cbJ2t5zRZiWapNeRdgpM70++f80NbLwbEpM7uX2AQ@mail.gmail.com>
<20180910160909.qf3h3ttztvbyyuds@alap3.anarazel.de>
<CAJ3gD9fJcYofmWCe9hJ9Y6dUYU-qpkR=Bii+NhYufE7Mny9AHw@mail.gmail.com>
<CAJ3gD9cWBKnzXkhu30njaY1au3NO0XD=r4N3GcC_nwFbw5GYYw@mail.gmail.com>
<27812.1537221015@sss.pgh.pa.us>
<20180919224047.mcdjwis56ywqzhzs@alap3.anarazel.de>
Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de> writes:
> On 2018-09-17 17:50:15 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Just to throw a contrarian opinion into this: I find the current EXPLAIN
>> output for JIT to be insanely verbose already.
> Hm, it'd have been nice to get that feedback a little bit earlier, I did
> inquire...
> Currently:
> JIT:
> Functions: 2
> Generation Time: 0.680 ms
> Inlining: true
> Inlining Time: 7.591 ms
> Optimization: true
> Optimization Time: 20.522 ms
> Emission Time: 14.607 ms
Just to clarify, that seems perfectly fine for the "machine readable"
output formats. I'd just like fewer lines in the "human readable"
output.
> How about making that:
> JIT:
> Functions: 2
> Options: Inlining, Optimization
> Times (Total, Generation, Inlining, Optimization, Emission): 43.4 ms, 0.680 ms, 7.591 ms, 20.522 ms, 14.607 ms
> or something similar?
That's going in the right direction. Personally I'd make the last line
more like
Times: generation 0.680 ms, inlining 7.591 ms, optimization 20.522 ms, emission 14.607 ms, total 43.4 ms
(total at the end seems more natural to me, YMMV). Also, the "options"
format you suggest here seems a bit too biased towards binary on/off
options --- what happens when there's a three-way option? So maybe that
line should be like
Options: inlining on, optimization on
though I'm less sure about that part.
regards, tom lane
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Reply to all the recipients using the --to and --cc options:
reply via email
To: pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
Cc: tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us, andres@anarazel.de, amitdkhan.pg@gmail.com, andreas@visena.com, robertmhaas@gmail.com, alvherre@2ndquadrant.com, jkatz@postgresql.org, pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org
Subject: Re: Query is over 2x slower with jit=on
In-Reply-To: <11291.1537414012@sss.pgh.pa.us>
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
This inbox is served by DDX for PostgreSQL; see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox