Re: [PERFORM] partitioning materialized views
От | Shaun Thomas |
---|---|
Тема | Re: [PERFORM] partitioning materialized views |
Дата | |
Msg-id | CAG1YDPdOvL3cm_1TLEi9ZUsetw0eSPKh57WqfU6-+k2sucuMSw@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: [PERFORM] partitioning materialized views (Rick Otten <rottenwindfish@gmail.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: [PERFORM] partitioning materialized views
|
Список | pgsql-performance |
> I don't think the downstream dependencies will let that work without > rebuilding them as well. The drop fails (without a cascade), and the other > views and matviews that are built off of this all simply point to x_old. Wow, ouch. Yeah, I'd neglected to consider dependent objects. Your only "out" at this point is to either add or utilize a "modified_date" column of some kind, so you can maintain a different MV with some recent window of data, and regularly merge that into a physical local copy (not an MV) sort of like a running ETL. Though that won't help with deletes, unfortunately. -- Shaun M Thomas - 2ndQuadrant PostgreSQL Training, Services and Support shaun.thomas@2ndquadrant.com | www.2ndQuadrant.com
В списке pgsql-performance по дате отправления: