From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>
cc: Amit Khandekar <amitdkhan.pg@gmail.com>,
        Andreas Joseph Krogh <andreas@visena.com>,
        Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>,
        Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com>,
        "Jonathan S. Katz" <jkatz@postgresql.org>,
        PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: Query is over 2x slower with jit=on
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>
Comments: In-reply-to Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>
	message dated "Wed, 19 Sep 2018 15:40:47 -0700"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-ID: <11290.1537414012.1@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Date: Wed, 19 Sep 2018 23:26:52 -0400
Message-ID: <11291.1537414012@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Precedence: bulk

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 EXPLAI=
N
>> 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