Re: Time to drop old-style (V0) functions?

On 2016-12-20 01:14:10 -0800, Andres Freund wrote:
> On 2016-12-20 09:59:43 +0100, Pavel Stehule wrote:
> > In this case some benchmark can be very important (and interesting). I am
> > not sure if faster function execution has significant benefit on Vulcano
> > like executor.
>
> It's fairly to see function calls as significant overhead. In fact, I
> moved things *away* from a pure Vulcano style executor, and the benefits
> weren't huge, primarily due to expression evaluation overhead (of which
> function call overhead is one part). After JITing of expressions, it
> becomes even more noticeable, because the overhead of the expression
> evaluation is reduced.

As an example, here's a JITed TPCH Q1 profile:
+ 15.48% postgres postgres [.] slot_deform_tuple
+ 8.42% postgres perf-27760.map [.] evalexpr90
+ 5.98% postgres postgres [.] float8_accum
+ 4.63% postgres postgres [.] slot_getattr
+ 3.69% postgres postgres [.] bpchareq
+ 3.39% postgres postgres [.] heap_getnext
+ 3.22% postgres postgres [.] float8pl
+ 2.86% postgres postgres [.] TupleHashTableMatch.isra.7
+ 2.77% postgres postgres [.] hashbpchar
+ 2.77% postgres postgres [.] float8mul
+ 2.73% postgres postgres [.] ExecAgg
+ 2.40% postgres postgres [.] hash_any
+ 2.34% postgres postgres [.] MemoryContextReset
+ 1.98% postgres postgres [.] pg_detoast_datum_packed

evalexpr90 is the expression that does the aggregate transition
function. float8_accum, bpchareq, float8pl , float8mul, ... are all
function calls, and a good percentage of the overhead in evalexpr90 is
pushing arguments onto fcinfo->arg[nulls].

Greetings,

Andres Freund