Postgres Pro
Downloads
Home   >   mailing lists

Re: [PERFORM] partitioning materialized views - Mailing list pgsql-performance

From Shaun Thomas
Subject Re: [PERFORM] partitioning materialized views
Date
Msg-id CAG1YDPdOvL3cm_1TLEi9ZUsetw0eSPKh57WqfU6-+k2sucuMSw@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: [PERFORM] partitioning materialized views  (Rick Otten <rottenwindfish@gmail.com>)
Responses Re: [PERFORM] partitioning materialized views  (Claudio Freire <klaussfreire@gmail.com>)
List pgsql-performance
Tree view 
> 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

pgsql-performance by date:

Previous
From: Rick Otten
Date:
Subject: Re: [PERFORM] partitioning materialized views
Next
From: Justin Pryzby
Date:
Subject: estimate correlation of index separately from table (Re: [PERFORM]index fragmentation on insert-only table with non-unique column)