On 2018-09-20 09:07:21 -0400, Stephen Frost wrote: > Greetings, > > * Andres Freund (and...@anarazel.de) wrote: > > On 2018-09-19 23:26:52 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > > > Andres Freund <and...@anarazel.de> writes: > > > > JIT: > > > > Functions: 2 > > > > Generation Time: 0.680 ms > > > > Inlining: true > > > > Inlining Time: 7.591 ms > > > > Optimization: true > > > > Optimization Time: 20.522 ms > > > > Emission Time: 14.607 ms > [...] > > > > How about making that: > > > > JIT: > > > > Functions: 2 > > > > FWIW, not that I want to do that now, but at some point it might make > > sense to sub-divide this into things like number of "expressions", > > "tuple deforming", "plans", ... Just mentioning that if somebody wants > > to comment on reformatting this as well, if we're tinkering anyway. > > I'd actually think we'd maybe want some kind of 'verbose' mode which > shows exactly what got JIT'd and what didn't- one of the questions that > I think people will be asking is "why didn't X get JIT'd?" and I don't > think that's very easy to figure out currently.
That seems largely a separate discussion / feature though, right? I'm not entirely clear what precisely you mean with "why didn't X get JIT'd?" - currently that's a whole query decision. > > I'm pretty certain you're right :). There's already arguments around > > making optimization more gradual (akin to O1,2,3). > > That certainly sounds like it'd be very neat to have though I wonder how > well we'll be able to automatically plan out which optimization level to > use when.. Well, that's not really different from having to decide whether to use JIT or not. I suspect that once / if we get caching and/or background JIT compilation, we can get a lot more creative around this. Greetings, Andres Freund
