Re: Query JITing with LLVM ORC

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: João Paulo Labegalini de Carvalho <jaopaulolc(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>
Subject: Re: Query JITing with LLVM ORC
Date: 2022-09-21 22:35:53
Message-ID: 1297373.1663799753@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

=?UTF-8?Q?Jo=C3=A3o_Paulo_Labegalini_de_Carvalho?= <jaopaulolc(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> Good to know. I compiled from the REL_14_5 tag and did a simple experiment
> to contrast building with and w/o passing --with-llvm.
> I ran the TPC-C benchmark with 1 warehouse, 10 terminals, 20min of ramp-up,
> and 120 of measurement time.
> The number of transactions per minute was about the same with & w/o JITing.
> Is this expected? Should I use a different benchmark to observe a
> performance difference?

TPC-C is mostly short queries, so we aren't likely to choose to use JIT
(and if we did, it'd likely be slower). You need a long query that will
execute the same expressions over and over for it to make sense to
compile them. Did you check whether any JIT was happening there?

There are a bunch of issues in this area concerning whether our cost
models are good enough to accurately predict whether JIT is a good
idea. But single-row fetches and updates are basically never going
to use it, nor should they.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Peter Eisentraut 2022-09-21 22:36:41 Re: [PoC] Let libpq reject unexpected authentication requests
Previous Message Jacob Champion 2022-09-21 22:31:29 Re: [EXTERNAL] Re: [PoC] Federated Authn/z with OAUTHBEARER