| From: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tobias Gierke <tobias(dot)gierke(at)code-sourcery(dot)de> |
| Cc: | pgsql-performance(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: JIT performance question |
| Date: | 2019-03-06 18:32:57 |
| Message-ID: | 20190306183257.lzdwpitvxehug3ag@alap3.anarazel.de |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-performance |
Hi,
On 2019-03-06 19:21:33 +0100, Tobias Gierke wrote:
> On 06.03.19 18:42, Andres Freund wrote:
> >
> > It's hard to know precisely without running a profile of the
> > workload. My suspicion is that the bottleneck in this query is the use
> > of numeric, which has fairly slow operations, including aggregation. And
> > they're too complicated to be inlined.
> >
> > Generally there's definitely advantage in JITing aggregation.
> >
> > There's a lot of further improvements on the table with better JIT code
> > generation, I just haven't gotten around implementing those :(
>
> Thanks for the quick response ! I think you're onto something with the
> numeric type. I replaced it with bigint and repeated my test and now I get a
> nice 40% speedup
Cool. It'd really be worthwhile for somebody to work on adding fastpaths
to the numeric code...
Greetings,
Andres Freund
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Kenia Vergara | 2019-03-06 20:09:46 | Good afternoon. |
| Previous Message | Tobias Gierke | 2019-03-06 18:21:33 | Re: JIT performance question |