On Wed, Jul 20, 2022 at 11:09 PM Amit Langote <[email protected]> wrote: > On Wed, Jul 20, 2022 at 12:37 AM Andres Freund <[email protected]> wrote: > > On 2022-07-19 20:40:11 +0900, Amit Langote wrote: > > > About that, I was wondering if the blocks in llvm_compile_expr() need > > > to be hand-coded to match what's added in ExecInterpExpr() or if I've > > > missed some tool that can be used instead? > > > > The easiest way is to just call an external function for the implementation > > of > > the step. But yes, otherwise you need to handcraft it. > > Ok, thanks. > > So I started updating llvm_compile_expr() for handling the new > ExprEvalSteps that the patch adds to ExecExprInterp(), but quickly > realized that code could have been consolidated into less code, or > IOW, into fewer new ExprEvalSteps. So, I refactored things that way > and am now retrying adding the code to llvm_compile_expr() based on > new, better consolidated, code. > > Here's the updated version, without the llvm pieces, in case you'd > like to look at it even in this state. I'll post a version with llvm > pieces filled in tomorrow. (I have merged the different patches into > one for convenience.)
And here's a version with llvm pieces filled in. Because I wrote all of it while not really understanding how the LLVM constructs like blocks and branches work, the only reason I think those llvm_compile_expr() additions may be correct is that all the tests in jsonb_sqljson.sql pass even if I add the following line at the top: set jit_above_cost to 0; -- Thanks, Amit Langote EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
v4-0001-Some-improvements-to-JsonExpr-evaluation.patch
Description: Binary data
