jit and explain nontext
/* don't print information if no JITing happened */
if (!ji || ji->created_functions == 0)
return;
This applies even when (es->format != EXPLAIN_FORMAT_TEXT), which I think is
wrong. Jit use can be determined by cost, so I think jit details should be
shown in non-text format whenever ji!=NULL, even if it's zeros. Arguably, bits
could be omitted if jit_expressions=off or jit_tuple_deforming=off, but I don't
see the point.
--
Justin
On Thu, 15 Oct 2020 at 08:39, Justin Pryzby <pryzby@telsasoft.com> wrote:
/* don't print information if no JITing happened */
if (!ji || ji->created_functions == 0)
return;This applies even when (es->format != EXPLAIN_FORMAT_TEXT), which I think is
wrong. Jit use can be determined by cost, so I think jit details should be
shown in non-text format whenever ji!=NULL, even if it's zeros. Arguably, bits
could be omitted if jit_expressions=off or jit_tuple_deforming=off, but I don't
see the point.
Just for some reference. Some wisdom was shared in [1]/messages/by-id/2276865.1593102811@sss.pgh.pa.us, which made a
lot of sense to me.
If we apply that, then we just need to decide if displaying any jit
related fields without any jitted expressions is relevant.
I'm a bit undecided.
David Rowley <dgrowleyml@gmail.com> writes:
Just for some reference. Some wisdom was shared in [1], which made a
lot of sense to me.
If we apply that, then we just need to decide if displaying any jit
related fields without any jitted expressions is relevant.
Hmm, I dunno if my opinion counts as "wisdom", but what I was arguing for
there was that we should print stuff if it's potentially invoked by a
run-time decision, but not if it was excluded at plan time. I'm not
totally clear on whether jitting decisions are fixed by the plan tree
(including its cost values) or if the executor can make different
decisions in different executions of the identical plan tree.
If the latter, then I agree with Justin that this is a bug.
regards, tom lane
On Thu, 15 Oct 2020 at 14:15, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
David Rowley <dgrowleyml@gmail.com> writes:
Just for some reference. Some wisdom was shared in [1], which made a
lot of sense to me.
If we apply that, then we just need to decide if displaying any jit
related fields without any jitted expressions is relevant.Hmm, I dunno if my opinion counts as "wisdom", but what I was arguing for
there was that we should print stuff if it's potentially invoked by a
run-time decision, but not if it was excluded at plan time. I'm not
totally clear on whether jitting decisions are fixed by the plan tree
(including its cost values) or if the executor can make different
decisions in different executions of the identical plan tree.
If the latter, then I agree with Justin that this is a bug.
As far as I know, the only exception where the executor overwrites the
planner's decision is in nodeValuesscan.c where it turns jit off
because each VALUES will get evaluated just once, which would be a
waste of effort to JIT.
Apart from that the choice is baked in by the planner and set in
PlannedStmt.jitfFlags.
David
On Thu, Oct 15, 2020 at 02:23:01PM +1300, David Rowley wrote:
On Thu, 15 Oct 2020 at 14:15, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
David Rowley <dgrowleyml@gmail.com> writes:
Just for some reference. Some wisdom was shared in [1], which made a
lot of sense to me.
If we apply that, then we just need to decide if displaying any jit
related fields without any jitted expressions is relevant.Hmm, I dunno if my opinion counts as "wisdom", but what I was arguing for
there was that we should print stuff if it's potentially invoked by a
run-time decision, but not if it was excluded at plan time. I'm not
totally clear on whether jitting decisions are fixed by the plan tree
(including its cost values) or if the executor can make different
decisions in different executions of the identical plan tree.
If the latter, then I agree with Justin that this is a bug.As far as I know, the only exception where the executor overwrites the
planner's decision is in nodeValuesscan.c where it turns jit off
because each VALUES will get evaluated just once, which would be a
waste of effort to JIT.Apart from that the choice is baked in by the planner and set in
PlannedStmt.jitfFlags.
What about the GUCs themselves ?
They can change after planning, which means a given execution of a plan might
or might not use jit.
--
Justin
On Thu, 15 Oct 2020 at 14:43, Justin Pryzby <pryzby@telsasoft.com> wrote:
On Thu, Oct 15, 2020 at 02:23:01PM +1300, David Rowley wrote:
On Thu, 15 Oct 2020 at 14:15, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
Hmm, I dunno if my opinion counts as "wisdom", but what I was arguing for
there was that we should print stuff if it's potentially invoked by a
run-time decision, but not if it was excluded at plan time. I'm not
totally clear on whether jitting decisions are fixed by the plan tree
(including its cost values) or if the executor can make different
decisions in different executions of the identical plan tree.
If the latter, then I agree with Justin that this is a bug.As far as I know, the only exception where the executor overwrites the
planner's decision is in nodeValuesscan.c where it turns jit off
because each VALUES will get evaluated just once, which would be a
waste of effort to JIT.Apart from that the choice is baked in by the planner and set in
PlannedStmt.jitfFlags.What about the GUCs themselves ?
They can change after planning, which means a given execution of a plan might
or might not use jit.
That's a pretty good point. If we do SET enable_sort TO off; then
cached plans are unaffected. That's not the case when someone does
SET jit TO off; as we'll check that in provider_init() during
execution. Although, switching jit back on again works differently.
If the planner saw it was off then switching it on again won't have
existing plans use it. That's slightly weird, but perhaps it was done
that way to ensure there was a hard off switch. You might want to
ensure that to ensure queries don't break if there was some problem
with LLVM libraries.
David
Hi,
On 2020-10-15 14:51:38 +1300, David Rowley wrote:
That's a pretty good point. If we do SET enable_sort TO off; then
cached plans are unaffected.
In contrast to that we do however use the current work_mem for
execution, I believe. Which could be fairly nasty, if a plan was made
for a huge work_mem, for example.
That's not the case when someone does SET jit TO off; as we'll check
that in provider_init() during execution. Although, switching jit
back on again works differently. If the planner saw it was off then
switching it on again won't have existing plans use it. That's
slightly weird, but perhaps it was done that way to ensure there was a
hard off switch.
It was motivated by not wanting to just enable JIT for queries that were
prepared within something like SET LOCAL jit=off;PREPARE; RESET
jit;. I'm open to revising it, but that's where it's coming from.
Greetings,
Andres Freund
On Thu, Oct 15, 2020 at 02:51:38PM +1300, David Rowley wrote:
On Thu, 15 Oct 2020 at 14:43, Justin Pryzby <pryzby@telsasoft.com> wrote:
On Thu, Oct 15, 2020 at 02:23:01PM +1300, David Rowley wrote:
On Thu, 15 Oct 2020 at 14:15, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
Hmm, I dunno if my opinion counts as "wisdom", but what I was arguing for
there was that we should print stuff if it's potentially invoked by a
run-time decision, but not if it was excluded at plan time. I'm not
totally clear on whether jitting decisions are fixed by the plan tree
(including its cost values) or if the executor can make different
decisions in different executions of the identical plan tree.
If the latter, then I agree with Justin that this is a bug.As far as I know, the only exception where the executor overwrites the
planner's decision is in nodeValuesscan.c where it turns jit off
because each VALUES will get evaluated just once, which would be a
waste of effort to JIT.Apart from that the choice is baked in by the planner and set in
PlannedStmt.jitfFlags.What about the GUCs themselves ?
They can change after planning, which means a given execution of a plan might
or might not use jit.That's a pretty good point.
Added at: https://commitfest.postgresql.org/30/2766/
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/explain.c b/src/backend/commands/explain.c
index 41317f1837..7345971507 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/explain.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/explain.c
@@ -839,7 +839,8 @@ ExplainPrintJIT(ExplainState *es, int jit_flags, JitInstrumentation *ji)
instr_time total_time; /* don't print information if no JITing happened */
- if (!ji || ji->created_functions == 0)
+ if (!ji || (ji->created_functions == 0 &&
+ es->format == EXPLAIN_FORMAT_TEXT))
return; /* calculate total time */
--
2.17.0
Attachments:
v1-0001-explain-show-JIT-details-in-non-text-format-even-.patchtext/x-diff; charset=us-asciiDownload
From 237f4d5d0739583683fd7a4d67a6e3d9120aba04 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Justin Pryzby <pryzbyj@telsasoft.com>
Date: Sat, 17 Oct 2020 14:10:11 -0500
Subject: [PATCH v1] explain: show JIT details in non-text format, even if zero
---
src/backend/commands/explain.c | 3 ++-
1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/explain.c b/src/backend/commands/explain.c
index 41317f1837..7345971507 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/explain.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/explain.c
@@ -839,7 +839,8 @@ ExplainPrintJIT(ExplainState *es, int jit_flags, JitInstrumentation *ji)
instr_time total_time;
/* don't print information if no JITing happened */
- if (!ji || ji->created_functions == 0)
+ if (!ji || (ji->created_functions == 0 &&
+ es->format == EXPLAIN_FORMAT_TEXT))
return;
/* calculate total time */
--
2.17.0
On Sun, 18 Oct 2020 at 08:21, Justin Pryzby <pryzby@telsasoft.com> wrote:
/* don't print information if no JITing happened */ - if (!ji || ji->created_functions == 0) + if (!ji || (ji->created_functions == 0 && + es->format == EXPLAIN_FORMAT_TEXT)) return;
Isn't that comment now outdated?
I imagine something more like; /* Only show JIT details when we jitted
something or when in non-text mode */ might be better after making
that code change.
David
On 2020-10-17 21:21, Justin Pryzby wrote:
Added at:https://commitfest.postgresql.org/30/2766/
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/explain.c b/src/backend/commands/explain.c index 41317f1837..7345971507 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/explain.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/explain.c @@ -839,7 +839,8 @@ ExplainPrintJIT(ExplainState *es, int jit_flags, JitInstrumentation *ji) instr_time total_time;/* don't print information if no JITing happened */ - if (!ji || ji->created_functions == 0) + if (!ji || (ji->created_functions == 0 && + es->format == EXPLAIN_FORMAT_TEXT)) return;/* calculate total time */
Can you show an output example of where this patch makes a difference?
Just from reading the description, I would expect some kind of
additional JIT-related output from something like
EXPLAIN (FORMAT YAML) SELECT 1;
but I don't see anything.
On Fri, Nov 20, 2020 at 04:56:38PM +0100, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
On 2020-10-17 21:21, Justin Pryzby wrote:
Added at:https://commitfest.postgresql.org/30/2766/
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/explain.c b/src/backend/commands/explain.c index 41317f1837..7345971507 100644 --- a/src/backend/commands/explain.c +++ b/src/backend/commands/explain.c @@ -839,7 +839,8 @@ ExplainPrintJIT(ExplainState *es, int jit_flags, JitInstrumentation *ji) instr_time total_time; /* don't print information if no JITing happened */ - if (!ji || ji->created_functions == 0) + if (!ji || (ji->created_functions == 0 && + es->format == EXPLAIN_FORMAT_TEXT)) return; /* calculate total time */Can you show an output example of where this patch makes a difference? Just
from reading the description, I would expect some kind of additional
JIT-related output from something likeEXPLAIN (FORMAT YAML) SELECT 1;
It matters if it was planned with jit but executed without jit.
postgres=# DEALLOCATE p; SET jit=on; SET jit_above_cost=0; prepare p as select from generate_series(1,9); explain(format yaml) execute p; SET jit=off; explain(format yaml) execute p;
Patched shows this for both explains:
JIT: +
Functions: 3 +
Unpatched shows only in the first case.
--
Justin
On 2020-11-20 17:16, Justin Pryzby wrote:
It matters if it was planned with jit but executed without jit.
postgres=# DEALLOCATE p; SET jit=on; SET jit_above_cost=0; prepare p as select from generate_series(1,9); explain(format yaml) execute p; SET jit=off; explain(format yaml) execute p;
Patched shows this for both explains:
JIT: +
Functions: 3 +Unpatched shows only in the first case.
In this context, I don't see the point of this change. If you set
jit=off explicitly, then there is no need to clutter the EXPLAIN output
with a bunch of zeroes about JIT.
On Sat, Nov 21, 2020 at 08:39:11AM +0100, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
On 2020-11-20 17:16, Justin Pryzby wrote:
It matters if it was planned with jit but executed without jit.
postgres=# DEALLOCATE p; SET jit=on; SET jit_above_cost=0; prepare p as select from generate_series(1,9); explain(format yaml) execute p; SET jit=off; explain(format yaml) execute p;
Patched shows this for both explains:
JIT: +
Functions: 3 +Unpatched shows only in the first case.
In this context, I don't see the point of this change. If you set jit=off
explicitly, then there is no need to clutter the EXPLAIN output with a bunch
of zeroes about JIT.
I think the idea is that someone should be able to parse the YAML/XML/other
output by writing something like a['JIT']['Functions'] rather than something
like a.get('JIT',{}).get('Functions',0)
The standard seems to be that parameters that can change during execution
should change the *values* in the non-text output, but the *keys* should not
disappear just because (for example) parallel workers weren't available, or
someone (else) turned off jit. We had discussion about this earlier in the
year:
/messages/by-id/20200728033622.GC20393@telsasoft.com
(Since it's machine-readable output, Key: 0 is Consistency and Completeness,
not Clutter.)
--
Justin
On Sat, Nov 21, 2020 at 10:26:00AM -0600, Justin Pryzby wrote:
On Sat, Nov 21, 2020 at 08:39:11AM +0100, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
On 2020-11-20 17:16, Justin Pryzby wrote:
It matters if it was planned with jit but executed without jit.
postgres=# DEALLOCATE p; SET jit=on; SET jit_above_cost=0; prepare p as select from generate_series(1,9); explain(format yaml) execute p; SET jit=off; explain(format yaml) execute p;
Patched shows this for both explains:
JIT: +
Functions: 3 +Unpatched shows only in the first case.
In this context, I don't see the point of this change. If you set jit=off
explicitly, then there is no need to clutter the EXPLAIN output with a bunch
of zeroes about JIT.I think the idea is that someone should be able to parse the YAML/XML/other
output by writing something like a['JIT']['Functions'] rather than something
like a.get('JIT',{}).get('Functions',0)The standard seems to be that parameters that can change during execution
should change the *values* in the non-text output, but the *keys* should not
disappear just because (for example) parallel workers weren't available, or
someone (else) turned off jit. We had discussion about this earlier in the
year:
/messages/by-id/20200728033622.GC20393@telsasoft.com(Since it's machine-readable output, Key: 0 is Consistency and Completeness,
not Clutter.)
If there's no interest or agreement in it, we should just close it.
I have no personal need for it, but noticed it in passing.
Attachments:
v2-0001-explain-show-JIT-details-in-non-text-format-even-.patchtext/x-diff; charset=us-asciiDownload
From 8a580c7a90e9854d53c15b69e761161330a6bf87 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Justin Pryzby <pryzbyj@telsasoft.com>
Date: Sat, 17 Oct 2020 14:10:11 -0500
Subject: [PATCH v2] explain: show JIT details in non-text format, even if zero
---
src/backend/commands/explain.c | 5 +++--
1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/commands/explain.c b/src/backend/commands/explain.c
index 43f9b01e83..89caa76801 100644
--- a/src/backend/commands/explain.c
+++ b/src/backend/commands/explain.c
@@ -838,8 +838,9 @@ ExplainPrintJIT(ExplainState *es, int jit_flags, JitInstrumentation *ji)
{
instr_time total_time;
- /* don't print information if no JITing happened */
- if (!ji || ji->created_functions == 0)
+ /* don't print information if JITing wasn't done at planning time */
+ if (!ji || (ji->created_functions == 0 &&
+ es->format == EXPLAIN_FORMAT_TEXT))
return;
/* calculate total time */
--
2.17.0
Justin Pryzby <pryzby@telsasoft.com> writes:
On Sat, Nov 21, 2020 at 10:26:00AM -0600, Justin Pryzby wrote:
On Sat, Nov 21, 2020 at 08:39:11AM +0100, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
In this context, I don't see the point of this change. If you set jit=off
explicitly, then there is no need to clutter the EXPLAIN output with a bunch
of zeroes about JIT.
If there's no interest or agreement in it, we should just close it.
I have no personal need for it, but noticed it in passing.
I dug around a bit and saw that essentially all of the JIT control
GUCs are consulted only at plan time (cf standard_planner, which
fills PlannedStmt.jitFlags based on the then-active settings).
So the only thing that really counts as a "run time decision"
here is that if you set jit = off between planning and execution,
or if we fail to load the JIT provider at all, then you'll get
no JITting even though the planner expected it to happen.
On balance I agree with Peter's opinion that this isn't worth
changing. I would be for the patch if the executor had a little
more freedom of action, but as things stand there's not much
freedom there.
regards, tom lane
On Fri, Jan 15, 2021 at 02:53:49PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
On balance I agree with Peter's opinion that this isn't worth
changing. I would be for the patch if the executor had a little
more freedom of action, but as things stand there's not much
freedom there.
Thanks for looking
CF: withdrawn.
--
Justin