| From: | David Rowley <dgrowleyml(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
| Cc: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Julien Rouhaud <rjuju123(at)gmail(dot)com>, Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net>, Justin Pryzby <pryzby(at)telsasoft(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Add parameter jit_warn_above_fraction |
| Date: | 2022-03-30 02:14:12 |
| Message-ID: | CAApHDvquOZEk4dBi7OanRWSr96EQU+Qj_HFL1+foqywg3+vGyw@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, 30 Mar 2022 at 14:48, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> wrote:
>
> On 2022-03-30 14:30:32 +1300, David Rowley wrote:
> > Maybe nodes below an Append/MergeAppend with run-time pruning could compile
> > on-demand and other nodes up-front. Or maybe there's no problem with making
> > everything on-demand.
>
> Yea, that could work. The expressions for one "partition query" would still
> have to be emitted at once. For each such subtree we should make a separate
> costing decision. But I think an additional "will be executed" sub-node is a
> different story, the threshold shouldn't be done on a per-node basis. That
> partitioning of the plan tree is kind of what I was trying to get at...
Maybe this point is moot if we get something like [1]. It might mean
that run-time pruning would happen early enough that we could just JIT
compile non-pruned subnodes.
David
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Amit Kapila | 2022-03-30 02:46:03 | Re: Column Filtering in Logical Replication |
| Previous Message | Andres Freund | 2022-03-30 01:48:30 | Re: Add parameter jit_warn_above_fraction |