Re: JIT doing duplicative optimization? - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Tom Lane
Subject Re: JIT doing duplicative optimization?
Date
Msg-id 2015219.1636914635@sss.pgh.pa.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: JIT doing duplicative optimization?  (Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org>)
Responses Re: JIT doing duplicative optimization?
List pgsql-hackers
Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org> writes:
> On 2021-Nov-11, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
>> But what really surprised me is that the the average time to optimize
>> per function is now 2.06ms ... less than half of the previous
>> measurement.  It emits 10% less functions than before, but the time to
>> both optimize and emit is reduced by 50%.  How does that make sense?

> Ah, here's a query that illustrates what I'm on about.  I found this
> query[1] in a blog post[2].
> ...

> Query 1, 148 functions JIT-compiled.
> Average time to optimize, per function 435.153/148 = 2.940ms;
> average time to emit per function 282.216/148 = 1.906ms

> Query 2, 137 functions JIT-compiled.
> Average time to optimize, per function: 374.103/137 = 2.730ms
> Average time to emit, per function 254.557 / 137 = 1.858ms

> Query 3, 126 functions JIT-compiled.
> Average time to optimize per function 229.128 / 126 = 1.181ms
> Average time to emit per function 167.338 / 126 = 1.328ms

Yeah, in combination with your other measurement, it sure does look like
there's something worse-than-linear going on here.  The alternative is to
assume that the individual functions are more complex in one query than
the other, and that seems like a bit of a stretch.

You could probably generate some queries with lots and lots of expressions
to characterize this better.  If it is O(N^2), it should not be hard to
drive the cost up to the point where the guilty bit of code would stand
out in a perf trace.

            regards, tom lane



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Zhihong Yu
Date:
Subject: Re: JIT doing duplicative optimization?
Next
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: Inconsistent error message for varchar(n)