RE: Expose JIT counters/timing in pg_stat_statements
От | Shinoda, Noriyoshi (PN Japan FSIP) |
---|---|
Тема | RE: Expose JIT counters/timing in pg_stat_statements |
Дата | |
Msg-id | PH7PR84MB1885730757AA814C2F0E8CEDEEE89@PH7PR84MB1885.NAMPRD84.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Expose JIT counters/timing in pg_stat_statements (Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net>) |
Ответы |
Re: Expose JIT counters/timing in pg_stat_statements
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
Hi,
thank you for the great features.
The attached small patch changes the data type in the document.
The following columns are actually double precision but bigint in the docs.
jit_generation_time
jit_inlining_time
jit_optimization_time
jit_emission_count
Regards,
Noriyoshi Shinoda
From: Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net>
Sent: Friday, April 8, 2022 8:47 PM
To: Julien Rouhaud <rjuju123@gmail.com>
Cc: PostgreSQL Developers <pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: Expose JIT counters/timing in pg_stat_statements
On Tue, Mar 8, 2022 at 4:08 AM Julien Rouhaud <rjuju123@gmail.com> wrote:
On Mon, Mar 07, 2022 at 01:40:34PM +0100, Magnus Hagander wrote:
>
> I wonder if there might be an interesting middle ground, or if that is
> making it too much. That is, we could have an
> Option 3:
> jit_count
> total_jit_time - for sum of functions+inlining+optimization+emission time
> min_jit_time - for sum of functions+inlining+optimization+emission time
> max_jit_time - for sum of functions+inlining+optimization+emission time
> mean_jit_time - for sum of functions+inlining+optimization+emission time
> stddev_jit_time - for sum of functions+inlining+optimization+emission time
> jit_functions
> jit_generation_time
> jit_inlining_count
> jit_inlining_time
> jit_optimization_count
> jit_optimization_time
> jit_emission_count
> jit_emission_time
>
> That is, we'd get the more detailed timings across the total time, but
> not on the details. But that might be overkill.
I also thought about it but it seems overkill. pg_stat_statements view is
already very big, and I think that the JIT time should be somewhat stable, at
least compared to how much a query execution time can vary depending on the
parameters. This approach would also be a bit useless if you change the
costing of underlying JIT operation.
> But -- here's an updated patched based on Option 2.
Thanks!
Code-wide, the patch looks good. For the doc, it seems that you documented
jit_inlining_count three times rather than documenting jit_optimization_count
and jit_emission_count.
Oops, thanks and fixed.
I don't think we can add tests there, and having a test for every new counter
being >= 0 seems entirely useless, however there should be a new test added for
the "oldextversions" test to make sure that there's no issue with old SQL / new
shlib compatibility. And looking at it I see that it was already missed for
version 1.9 :(
Indeed. Fixed here.
Michael had already applied a patch that took us to 1.10 and added that test, so I've just updated it here. I don't think we normally bump the version twice int he same day, so I just mergd the SQL script changes as well.
PFA a "final" version for the CI to run.
--
Magnus Hagander
Me: https://www.hagander.net/
Work: https://www.redpill-linpro.com/
Вложения
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: