From: | Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | João Paulo Labegalini de Carvalho <jaopaulolc(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 22:44:14 |
Message-ID: | CA+hUKGKLMpRHsWnD87vvzbSR8Cy15GVUdQhp8f3iqr+eEmXbqA@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Sep 22, 2022 at 10:35 AM Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> =?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?
See also the proposal thread which has some earlier numbers from TPC-H.
https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/flat/20170901064131.tazjxwus3k2w3ybh%40alap3.anarazel.de
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Thomas Munro | 2022-09-21 22:54:14 | Re: Query JITing with LLVM ORC |
Previous Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2022-09-21 22:36:41 | Re: [PoC] Let libpq reject unexpected authentication requests |