> On Fri, Mar 31, 2023 at 07:39:27PM +0200, Dmitry Dolgov wrote:
> > On Wed, Mar 29, 2023 at 01:50:37PM +1300, David Rowley wrote:
> > On Sun, 12 Jun 2022 at 21:14, Dmitry Dolgov <9erthalion6(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> > > I've noticed that JIT performance counter generation_counter seems to include
> > > actions, relevant for both jit_expressions and jit_tuple_deforming options. It
> > > means one can't directly see what is the influence of jit_tuple_deforming
> > > alone, which would be helpful when adjusting JIT options. To make it better a
> > > new counter can be introduced, does it make sense?
> >
> > I'm not so sure about this idea. As of now, if I look at EXPLAIN
> > ANALYZE's JIT summary, the individual times add up to the total time.
> >
> > If we add this deform time, then that's no longer going to be true as
> > the "Generation" time includes the newly added deform time.
> >
> > master:
> > JIT:
> > Functions: 600
> > Options: Inlining false, Optimization false, Expressions true, Deforming true
> > Timing: Generation 37.758 ms, Inlining 0.000 ms, Optimization 6.736
> > ms, Emission 172.244 ms, Total 216.738 ms
> >
> > 37.758 + 6.736 + 172.244 = 216.738
> >
> > I think if I was a DBA wondering why JIT was taking so long, I'd
> > probably either be very astonished or I'd report a bug if I noticed
> > that all the individual component JIT times didn't add up to the total
> > time.
> >
> > I don't think the solution is to subtract the deform time from the
> > generation time either.
> >
> > Can't users just get this by looking at EXPLAIN ANALYZE with and
> > without jit_tuple_deforming?
>
> It could be done this way, but then users need to know that tuple
> deforming is included into generation time (I've skimmed through the
> docs, there seems to be no direct statements about that, although it
> could be guessed). At the same time I don't think it's very
> user-friendly approach -- after all it could be the same for other
> timings, i.e. only one counter for all JIT operations present,
> expecting users to experiment how would it change if this or that option
> will be different.
>
> I agree about adding up to the total time though. What about changing
> the format to something like this?
>
> Options: Inlining false, Optimization false, Expressions true, Deforming true
> Timing: Generation 37.758 ms (Deforming 1.234 ms), Inlining 0.000 ms, Optimization 6.736 ms, Emission 172.244 ms, Total 216.738 ms
>
> This way it doesn't look like deforming timing is in the same category
> as others, but rather a part of another value.
Here is the patch with the proposed variation.