| From: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
|---|---|
| To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, "Jonathan S(dot) Katz" <jkatz(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Cc: | PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>, Andreas Joseph Krogh <andreas(at)visena(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: Query is over 2x slower with jit=on |
| Date: | 2018-08-22 16:12:41 |
| Message-ID: | 20180822161241.je6nghzjsktbb57b@alap3.anarazel.de |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Hi,
On 2018-04-18 18:37:30 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 18, 2018 at 3:29 PM, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> wrote:
> > Not convinced that that is true - the issue is more likely that JIT work in workers is counted as execute time... Gotta add that somehow, not sure what the best way would be.
>
> Oh, that does seem like something that should be fixed. If that's
> what is happening here, it's bound to confuse a lot of people.
> Probably you need to add some code to
> ExecParallelRetrieveInstrumentation.
I had lost track of this, and we unfortunately hadn't added an open item
back then. I think we should add it now?
RMT (with me recused), do you think we should accept the new code fixing
this would entail? And thus that this should be an open item? It's
arguably a new feature, although I don't find that a terribly convincing
position.
Greetings,
Andres Freund
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2018-08-22 16:33:43 | Re: JIT compiling with LLVM v12 |
| Previous Message | Andreas Joseph Krogh | 2018-08-22 15:53:08 | Sv: Re: JIT compiling with LLVM v12 |