| From: | Kevin Grittner <kgrittn(at)ymail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Noah Misch <noah(at)leadboat(dot)com>, Nicolas Barbier <nicolas(dot)barbier(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Drastic performance loss in assert-enabled build in HEAD |
| Date: | 2013-04-05 13:40:45 |
| Message-ID: | 1365169245.79317.YahooMailNeo@web162901.mail.bf1.yahoo.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Noah Misch <noah(at)leadboat(dot)com> wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 04, 2013 at 12:28:01PM +0200, Nicolas Barbier wrote:
>> +1. Having unlogged matviews without having incremental updates
>> yet, isn't super useful anyway.
>
> I would have surmised the opposite
Hmm. I was thinking about the fact that a full refresh can be
unlogged anyway, but that's only true if you're not using WAL for
replication. If you need a matview on the master but not on the
replica(s), then there is still benefit to declaring it to be
unlogged in the absence of incremental maintenance.
--
Kevin Grittner
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Kevin Grittner | 2013-04-05 14:00:38 | Re: matview scannability rehash (was Re: Drastic performance loss in assert-enabled build in HEAD) |
| Previous Message | Kevin Grittner | 2013-04-05 13:30:36 | Re: matview scannability rehash (was Re: Drastic performance loss in assert-enabled build in HEAD) |