Hi,
On 2023-06-24 13:54:53 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> I think there is *plenty* of evidence that it is too low, or at least
> that for some reason we are too willing to invoke JIT when the result
> is to make the overall cost of a query far higher than it is without.
> Just see all the complaints on
On Sun, 2023-06-25 at 11:10 +0200, Michael Banck wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 24, 2023 at 01:54:53PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> > I don't know whether raising the default would be enough to fix that
> > in a nice way, and I certainly don't pretend to have a specific value
> > to offer. But it's undeniable t
On Sun, Jun 25, 2023 at 5:10 AM Michael Banck wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> On Sat, Jun 24, 2023 at 01:54:53PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> > I don't know whether raising the default would be enough to fix that
> > in a nice way, and I certainly don't pretend to have a specific value
> > to offer. But it's unde
Hi,
On Sat, Jun 24, 2023 at 01:54:53PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> I don't know whether raising the default would be enough to fix that
> in a nice way, and I certainly don't pretend to have a specific value
> to offer. But it's undeniable that we have a serious problem here,
> to the point where JI
On Sat, Jun 24, 2023 at 8:14 PM David Rowley wrote:
>
> On Sun, 25 Jun 2023 at 05:54, Tom Lane wrote:
> >
> > James Coleman writes:
> > > On Sat, Jun 24, 2023 at 7:40 AM Tomas Vondra
> > > wrote:
> > >> On 6/24/23 02:33, David Rowley wrote:
> > >>> On Sat, 24 Jun 2023 at 02:28, James Coleman w
On Sat, Jun 24, 2023 at 1:54 PM Tom Lane wrote:
>
> James Coleman writes:
> > In that context capping the number of backends compiling, particularly
> > where plans (and JIT?) might be cached, could well save us (depending
> > on workload).
>
> TBH I do not find this proposal attractive in the le
On Sun, 25 Jun 2023 at 05:54, Tom Lane wrote:
>
> James Coleman writes:
> > On Sat, Jun 24, 2023 at 7:40 AM Tomas Vondra
> > wrote:
> >> On 6/24/23 02:33, David Rowley wrote:
> >>> On Sat, 24 Jun 2023 at 02:28, James Coleman wrote:
> There are a couple of issues here. I'm sure it's been di
James Coleman writes:
> On Sat, Jun 24, 2023 at 7:40 AM Tomas Vondra
> wrote:
>> On 6/24/23 02:33, David Rowley wrote:
>>> On Sat, 24 Jun 2023 at 02:28, James Coleman wrote:
There are a couple of issues here. I'm sure it's been discussed
before, and it's not the point of my thread, but
On Sat, Jun 24, 2023 at 7:40 AM Tomas Vondra
wrote:
>
>
>
> On 6/24/23 02:33, David Rowley wrote:
> > On Sat, 24 Jun 2023 at 02:28, James Coleman wrote:
> >> There are a couple of issues here. I'm sure it's been discussed
> >> before, and it's not the point of my thread, but I can't help but note
On 6/24/23 02:33, David Rowley wrote:
> On Sat, 24 Jun 2023 at 02:28, James Coleman wrote:
>> There are a couple of issues here. I'm sure it's been discussed
>> before, and it's not the point of my thread, but I can't help but note
>> that the default value of jit_above_cost of 10 seems abs
On Sat, 24 Jun 2023 at 02:28, James Coleman wrote:
> There are a couple of issues here. I'm sure it's been discussed
> before, and it's not the point of my thread, but I can't help but note
> that the default value of jit_above_cost of 10 seems absurdly low.
> On good hardware like we have eve
Hello,
We recently brought online a new database cluster, and in the course
of ramping up traffic to it encountered a situation where a misplanned
query (analyzing helped with this, but I think the issue is still
relevant) resulted in that query being compiled with JIT, and soon a
large number of
12 matches
Mail list logo
