| From: | David Rowley <david(dot)rowley(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
| Cc: | Ants Aasma <ants(dot)aasma(at)eesti(dot)ee>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: JIT compiling - v4.0 |
| Date: | 2017-10-05 10:43:37 |
| Message-ID: | CAKJS1f-qGS+as2fMZwkdP1tj6hfUnXmFv0T_MKWPenGdd5UyEw@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 5 October 2017 at 19:57, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> wrote:
> Here's some numbers for a a TPC-H scale 5 run. Obviously the Q01 numbers
> are pretty nice in partcular. But it's also visible that the shorter
> query can loose, which is largely due to the JIT overhead - that can be
> ameliorated to some degree, but JITing obviously isn't always going to
> be a win.
It's pretty exciting to see thing being worked on.
I've not looked at the code, but I'm thinking, could you not just JIT
if the total cost of the plan is estimated to be > X ? Where X is some
JIT threshold GUC.
--
David Rowley http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Kyotaro HORIGUCHI | 2017-10-05 11:06:31 | Re: Another oddity in handling of WCO constraints in postgres_fdw |
| Previous Message | Amit Khandekar | 2017-10-05 10:41:16 | Re: Parallel Append implementation |