On Tue, 14 May 2024 at 19:56, Jelte Fennema-Nio <postg...@jeltef.nl> wrote:
> I'm not saying I'd prefer the extra walk, but I don't think you'd need
> to do this extra walk for all plans. Afaict you could skip the extra
> walk when top_plan->total_cost < jit_above_cost. i.e. only doing the
> extra walk to determine which exact nodes to JIT for cases where we
> currently JIT all nodes. That would limit the extra walk overhead to
> cases where we currently already spend significant resources on JITing
> stuff.
You could do that, but wouldn't it just cause us to sometimes miss
doing JIT for plan nodes that have a total cost above the top node's?
To me, it seems like a shortcut that someone might complain about one
day and fixing it might require removing the short cut, which would
lead to traversing the whole plan tree.
Here's a plan where the total cost of a subnode is greater than the
total cost of the top node:
set max_parallel_workers_per_gather=0;
create table t0 as select a from generate_Series(1,1000000)a;
analyze t0;
explain select * from t0 order by a limit 1;
QUERY PLAN
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Limit (cost=19480.00..19480.00 rows=1 width=4)
-> Sort (cost=19480.00..21980.00 rows=1000000 width=4)
Sort Key: a
-> Seq Scan on t0 (cost=0.00..14480.00 rows=1000000 width=4)
Anyway, I don't think it's worth talking in detail about specifics
about implementation for the total cost of the node idea when the
whole replacement costing model design is still undecided. It feels
like we're trying to decide what colour to paint the bathroom when we
haven't even come up with a design for the house yet.
I'd be interested to hear your thoughts on using the estimated number
of invocations of the function to drive the JIT flags on a
per-expression level.
David
