| From: | Noah Misch <noah(at)leadboat(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Nicolas Barbier <nicolas(dot)barbier(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Kevin Grittner <kgrittn(at)ymail(dot)com>, 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: | 2013-04-04 22:00:39 |
| Message-ID: | 20130404220039.GA27169@tornado.leadboat.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Apr 04, 2013 at 12:28:01PM +0200, Nicolas Barbier wrote:
> 2013/4/3 Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>:
> > And if you're absolutely convinced that unlogged matviews mustn't work as I
> > suggest, we can lose those from 9.3, too.
>
> +1. Having unlogged matviews without having incremental updates yet,
> isn't super useful anyway.
I would have surmised the opposite: since an unlogged MV requires a full
refresh at unpredictable moments, logged MVs will be preferred where a refresh
is prohibitively expensive. Why might unlogged-MV applications desire
incremental updates more acutely than logged-MV applications?
--
Noah Misch
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2013-04-04 22:07:17 | Re: matview scannability rehash (was Re: Drastic performance loss in assert-enabled build in HEAD) |
| Previous Message | Noah Misch | 2013-04-04 21:52:45 | matview scannability rehash (was Re: Drastic performance loss in assert-enabled build in HEAD) |