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

From legrand legrand
Subject Re: Implementing Incremental View Maintenance
Date
Msg-id 1577097678190-0.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  (Yugo Nagata <nagata@sraoss.co.jp>)
List 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



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Yugo Nagata
Date:
Subject: Re: Implementing Incremental View Maintenance
Next
From: Amit Kapila
Date:
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Block level parallel vacuum