Re: JIT compilation per plan node - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Jelte Fennema-Nio
Subject Re: JIT compilation per plan node
Date
Msg-id CAGECzQSQuxTWNVL4hhqX2Zu3bjSXnxWjWtEhvSXyziPBS0Bw=A@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: JIT compilation per plan node  (David Rowley <dgrowleyml@gmail.com>)
Responses Re: JIT compilation per plan node
List pgsql-hackers
On Tue, 20 Feb 2024 at 06:38, David Rowley <dgrowleyml@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Tue, 20 Feb 2024 at 18:31, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> > FWIW, I seriously doubt that an extra walk of the plan tree is even
> > measurable compared to the number of cycles JIT compilation will
> > expend if it's called.  So I don't buy your argument here.
> > We would be better off to do this in a way that's clean and doesn't
> > add overhead for non-JIT-enabled builds.
>
> The extra walk of the tree would need to be done for every plan, not
> just the ones where we do JIT. I'd rather find a way to not add this
> extra plan tree walk, especially since the vast majority of cases on
> an average instance won't be doing any JIT.

I'm not saying I'd prefer the extra walk, but I don't think you'd need
to do this extra walk for all plans. Afaict you could skip the extra
walk when top_plan->total_cost < jit_above_cost. i.e. only doing the
extra walk to determine which exact nodes to JIT for cases where we
currently JIT all nodes. That would limit the extra walk overhead to
cases where we currently already spend significant resources on JITing
stuff.



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Daniel Gustafsson
Date:
Subject: Re: Bibliography section, some references cannot be found
Next
From: Peter Eisentraut
Date:
Subject: Re: An improved README experience for PostgreSQL