čt 20. 9. 2018 v 5:39 odesílatel Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de> napsal:
On 2018-09-19 23:26:52 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de> writes: > > On 2018-09-17 17:50:15 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > >> Just to throw a contrarian opinion into this: I find the current EXPLAIN > >> output for JIT to be insanely verbose already. > > > Hm, it'd have been nice to get that feedback a little bit earlier, I did > > inquire... > > > Currently: > > > JIT: > > Functions: 2 > > Generation Time: 0.680 ms > > Inlining: true > > Inlining Time: 7.591 ms > > Optimization: true > > Optimization Time: 20.522 ms > > Emission Time: 14.607 ms > > Just to clarify, that seems perfectly fine for the "machine readable" > output formats. I'd just like fewer lines in the "human readable" > output.
Yea, I do think that's a fair complaint.
> > How about making that: > > > JIT: > > Functions: 2
FWIW, not that I want to do that now, but at some point it might make sense to sub-divide this into things like number of "expressions", "tuple deforming", "plans", ... Just mentioning that if somebody wants to comment on reformatting this as well, if we're tinkering anyway.
> > > or something similar? > > That's going in the right direction. Personally I'd make the last line > more like > > Times: generation 0.680 ms, inlining 7.591 ms, optimization 20.522 ms, emission 14.607 ms, total 43.4 ms
Yea, that's probably easier to read.
> (total at the end seems more natural to me, YMMV).
I kind of think doing it first is best, because that's usually the first thing one wants to know.
> Also, the "options" format you suggest here seems a bit too biased > towards binary on/off options --- what happens when there's a > three-way option? So maybe that line should be like > > Options: inlining on, optimization on > > though I'm less sure about that part.
I'm pretty certain you're right :). There's already arguments around making optimization more gradual (akin to O1,2,3).