Re: Performance degradation of REFRESH MATERIALIZED VIEW - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Tomas Vondra
Subject Re: Performance degradation of REFRESH MATERIALIZED VIEW
Date
Msg-id 20598870-55b5-e70c-e4b9-5b8da9375403@enterprisedb.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Performance degradation of REFRESH MATERIALIZED VIEW  (Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>)
Responses Re: Performance degradation of REFRESH MATERIALIZED VIEW
List pgsql-hackers
On 5/24/21 8:21 PM, Andres Freund wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> On 2021-05-24 12:37:18 +0200, Tomas Vondra wrote:
>> Another option might be changes in the binary layout - 5% change is well
>> within the range that could be attributed to this, but it feels very
>> hand-wavy and more like an excuse than real analysis.
> 
> I don't think 5% is likely to be explained by binary layout unless you
> look for an explicitly adverse layout.
> 

Yeah, true. But I'm out of ideas what might be causing the regression
and how to fix it :-(

> 
>> Hmmm, thanks for reminding us that patch. Why did we reject that approach in
>> favor of the current one?
> 
> Don't know about others, but I think it's way too fragile.
> 

Is it really that fragile? Any particular risks you have in mind? Maybe
we could protect against that somehow ... Anyway, that change would
certainly be for PG15.


regards

-- 
Tomas Vondra
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: Issue on catalogs.sgml
Next
From: Peter Geoghegan
Date:
Subject: Re: Testing autovacuum wraparound (including failsafe)