Re: Implementing Incremental View Maintenance
От | legrand legrand |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Implementing Incremental View Maintenance |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 1577097678190-0.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 |
Hello, regarding my initial post: > For each insert into a base table there are 3 statements: > - ANALYZE pg_temp_3.pg_temp_81976 > - WITH updt AS ( UPDATE public.mv1 AS mv SET __ivm_count__ = ... > - DROP TABLE pg_temp_3.pg_temp_81976 For me there where 3 points to discuss: - create/drop tables may bloat dictionnary tables - create/drop tables prevents "WITH updt ..." from being shared (with some plan caching) - generates many lines in pg_stat_statements In fact I like the idea of a table created per session, but I would even prefer a common "table" shared between all sessions like GLOBAL TEMPORARY TABLE (or something similar) as described here: https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/flat/157703426606.1198.2452090605041230054.pgcf%40coridan.postgresql.org#331e8344bbae904350af161fb43a0aa6 That would remove the drop/create issue, permits to reduce planning time for "WITH updt ..." statements (as done today in PLpgsql triggers), and would fix the pgss "bloat" issue. Like that the "cost" of the immediate refresh approach would be easier to support ;o) Regards PAscal -- Sent from: https://www.postgresql-archive.org/PostgreSQL-hackers-f1928748.html
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: