| From: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tomas Vondra <tomas(dot)vondra(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Masahiko Sawada <sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com>, Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>, Bharath Rupireddy <bharath(dot)rupireddyforpostgres(at)gmail(dot)com>, Kyotaro Horiguchi <horikyota(dot)ntt(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Pavan Deolasee <pavan(dot)deolasee(at)gmail(dot)com>, Anastasia Lubennikova <a(dot)lubennikova(at)postgrespro(dot)ru>, Jeff Janes <jeff(dot)janes(at)gmail(dot)com>, Paul Guo <guopa(at)vmware(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: Performance degradation of REFRESH MATERIALIZED VIEW |
| Date: | 2021-05-18 18:44:30 |
| Message-ID: | 20210518184430.syeg6wqre6uh65q6@alap3.anarazel.de |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Hi,
On 2021-05-18 20:34:08 +0200, Tomas Vondra wrote:
> Yeah, I see your point. I agree it's unfortunate there's no way to disable
> freezing during REFRESH MV. For most users that trade-off is probably fine,
> but for some cases (matviews refreshed often, or cases where it's fine to
> pay more but later) it may be an issue.
>
> From this POV, however, it may not be enough to optimize the current
> freezing code - it's always going to be a bit slower than before.
But the intrinsic overhead is *tiny*. Setting a few bits, with the other
costs amortized over a lot of pages. As far as I can tell the measurable
overhead is that the increased WAL logging - which is not necessary.
Greetings,
Andres Freund
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andres Freund | 2021-05-18 18:57:19 | Re: Performance degradation of REFRESH MATERIALIZED VIEW |
| Previous Message | Tomas Vondra | 2021-05-18 18:43:41 | Re: Performance degradation of REFRESH MATERIALIZED VIEW |