Re: Implementing Incremental View Maintenance
От | Jim Finnerty |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Implementing Incremental View Maintenance |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 1561131671319-0.post@n3.nabble.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Implementing Incremental View Maintenance (Yugo Nagata <nagata@sraoss.co.jp>) |
Ответы |
Re: Implementing Incremental View Maintenance
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
Hi Yugo, I'd like to compare the performance of your MV refresh algorithm versus an approach that logs changes into an mv log table, and can then apply the changes at some later point in time. I'd like to handle the materialized join view (mjv) case first, specifically a 2-way left outer join, with a UDF in the SELECT list of the mjv. Does your refresh algorithm handle mjv's with connected join graphs that consist entirely of inner and left outer joins? If so, I'd like to measure the overhead of your refresh algorithm on pgbench, modified to include an mjv, versus a (hand coded) incremental maintenance algorithm that uses mv log tables populated by ordinary triggers. We may also want to look at capturing the deltas using logical replication, which ought to be faster than a trigger-based solution. I have someone available to do the performance testing for another 2 months, so if you can connect with me off-list to coordinate, we can set up the performance experiments and run them on our AWS clusters. best regards, /Jim F ----- Jim Finnerty, AWS, Amazon Aurora PostgreSQL -- Sent from: http://www.postgresql-archive.org/PostgreSQL-hackers-f1928748.html
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: