| From: | "David G(dot) Johnston" <david(dot)g(dot)johnston(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | jian he <jian(dot)universality(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | pgsql-general list <pgsql-general(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: does refreshing materialized view make the database bloat? |
| Date: | 2023-01-14 06:19:04 |
| Message-ID: | CAKFQuwaqHqvC7PgsmyxHQ00Hc0NhtaKB8aaKDsttsvRssKx27Q@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general |
On Friday, January 13, 2023, jian he <jian(dot)universality(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
> Once we have the diff table, we perform set-based DELETE and INSERT
>> operations against the materialized view, and discard both temporary
>> tables.
>>
>
> Here the temporary tables are "discard" meaning the temporary tables are
> deleted and the temporary tables' spaces are reclaimed immediately?
> Or the temporary tables are deleted and the spaces will be reclaimed by
> another mechanism?
>
> simplify:does refreshing materialized view make the database bloat.
>
>
The materialized view itself bloats. The temp tables are removed
immediately (the “drop table” docs don’t say this explicitly though it the
most logical behavior and implied by the fact it takes an access exclusive
lock).
David J.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Peter J. Holzer | 2023-01-14 08:51:33 | Re: does refreshing materialized view make the database bloat? |
| Previous Message | Ken Tanzer | 2023-01-14 06:17:27 | Re: Intervals and ISO 8601 duration |