| From: | Daniel Gustafsson <daniel(at)yesql(dot)se> |
|---|---|
| To: | Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie> |
| Cc: | Postgres hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: JIT documentation fixes |
| Date: | 2018-06-09 17:40:22 |
| Message-ID: | BF8AEB5B-EB4B-4689-93DE-0651BDCB4299@yesql.se |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
> On 9 Jun 2018, at 19:05, Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie> wrote:
>
> On Thu, May 31, 2018 at 11:50 AM, Daniel Gustafsson <daniel(at)yesql(dot)se> wrote:
>> When reading the JIT developer documentation, a few small wordsmithing issues
>> stood out (although this may be due to me not being a native english speaker).
>> The attached patch fixes these to what I think the sentences inteded to say.
>
> Committed with a few adjustments.
Thanks, I’m honoured to get the first commit.
> I'm also pretty sure that Andres did in fact mean "...even for faster
> queries", since an LRU cache of JIT functions should be particularly
> useful for OLTP queries that are already individually fast enough to
> make per-execution JIT compilation overhead prohibitively expensive.
Ah, I completely misunderstood that part (apparently) but that make sense.
cheers ./daniel
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tomas Vondra | 2018-06-09 18:09:43 | Re: POC: GROUP BY optimization |
| Previous Message | Peter Geoghegan | 2018-06-09 17:05:01 | Re: JIT documentation fixes |