On 2016-10-28 14:47:35 +0300, Dmitry Melnik wrote:
> We'd like to present our work on adding LLVM JIT compilation of expressions
> in SQL queries for PostgreSQL.

Great!  I'm also working in the area, albeit with a, I think, a bit
different approach[1].   Is your goal to integrate this work into postgres
proper, or is this more an academic research project?

If the former, lets try to collaborate. If the latter, lets talk, so
we're not integrating something dumb ;)

[1]. So far I've basically converted expression evaluation, and tuple
deforming, into small interpreted (switch/computed goto opcode dispatch)
mini-languages, which then can be JITed. Adding a small handwritten
x86-64 JIT (out of fun, not because I think that's a good approach) also
resulted in quite noticeable speedups.  Did you experiment with JITing
tuple deforming as well?  The reason I was thinking of going in this
direction, is that it's a lot faster to compile such mini pieces of
code, and it already gives significant speedups. There still are
function calls to postgres functions, but they're all direct function
calls, instead of indirect ones.

> Currently, our JIT is used to compile expressions in every query, so for
> short-running queries JIT compilation may take longer than query execution
> itself. We plan to address it by using planner estimate to decide whether
> it worth JIT compiling, also we may try parallel JIT compilation. But for
> now we recommend testing it on a large workload  in order to pay off the
> compilation (we've tested on 40GB database for Q1).

Could you give some estimates about how long JITing takes for you, say
for Q1?  Different approaches here obviously have very different

> This work is a part of our greater effort on implementing full JIT compiler
> in PostgreSQL, where along with JITting expressions we've changed the
> iteration model from Volcano-style to push-model and reimplemented code
> generation with LLVM for most of Scan/Aggregation/Join methods. That
> approach gives much better speedup (x4-5 times on Q1), but it takes many
> code changes, so we're developing it as PostgreSQL extension.

FWIW, I think long term, we're going to want something like that in
core. I'm currently working on a "gradual" transformation towards that,
by *optionally* dealing with "batches" of tuples which get passed
around.  Noticeable speedups, but not in the 4-5x range.

> Also we're going to give a lightning talk at upcoming PGConf.EU in Tallinn,
> and discuss the further development with PostgreSQL community. We'd
> appreciate any feedback!

Cool, lets chat a bit, I'm also here.


Andres Freund

Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:

Reply via email to