On 2017-10-05 23:43:37 +1300, David Rowley wrote:
> On 5 October 2017 at 19:57, Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de> wrote:
> > Here's some numbers for a a TPC-H scale 5 run. Obviously the Q01 numbers
> > are pretty nice in partcular. But it's also visible that the shorter
> > query can loose, which is largely due to the JIT overhead - that can be
> > ameliorated to some degree, but JITing obviously isn't always going to
> > be a win.
>
> It's pretty exciting to see thing being worked on.
>
> I've not looked at the code, but I'm thinking, could you not just JIT
> if the total cost of the plan is estimated to be > X ? Where X is some
> JIT threshold GUC.
Right, that's the plan. But it seems fairly important to make the
envelope in which it is beneficial as broad as possible. Also, test
coverage is more interesting for me right now ;)
Greetings,
Andres Freund
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers