Re: Implementing Incremental View Maintenance - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From legrand legrand
Subject Re: Implementing Incremental View Maintenance
Date
Msg-id 1577046170225-0.post@n3.nabble.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Implementing Incremental View Maintenance  (Yugo Nagata <nagata@sraoss.co.jp>)
Responses RE: Implementing Incremental View Maintenance  ("tsunakawa.takay@fujitsu.com" <tsunakawa.takay@fujitsu.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
Hello,

First of all many thanks for this Great feature 
replacing so many triggers by a so simple syntax ;o)

I was wondering about performances and add a look 
at pg_stat_statements (with track=all) with IVM_v9.patch.

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

It generates a lot of lines in pg_stat_statements with calls = 1.
Thoses statements can not be shared because the temp table is dropped each
time.

Is there a plan to change this ?

Many Thanks again

Regards
PAscal



--
Sent from: https://www.postgresql-archive.org/PostgreSQL-hackers-f1928748.html



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Noah Misch
Date:
Subject: Re: mdclose() does not cope w/ FileClose() failure
Next
From: Thomas Munro
Date:
Subject: Re: mdclose() does not cope w/ FileClose() failure