Re: Implementing Incremental View Maintenance

From: Adam Brusselback <adambrusselback(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: denty <denty(at)qqdd(dot)eu>
Cc: Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Implementing Incremental View Maintenance
Date: 2018-12-31 16:20:11
Message-ID: CAMjNa7cogDibpuGF=MDdaJGxKmnnz7pcxwp2ZwFFE-WjxUoNsA@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Hi all, just wanted to say I am very happy to see progress made on this,
my codebase has multiple "materialized tables" which are maintained with
statement triggers (transition tables) and custom functions. They are ugly
and a pain to maintain, but they work because I have no other
solution...for now at least.

I am concerned that the eager approach only addresses a subset of the MV use
> case space, though. For example, if we presume that an MV is present
> because
> the underlying direct query would be non-performant, then we have to at
> least question whether applying the delta-update would also be detrimental
> to some use cases.
>

I will say that in my case, as long as my reads of the materialized view
are always consistent with the underlying data, that's what's important. I
don't mind if it's eager, or lazy (as long as lazy still means it will
refresh prior to reading).

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Noah Misch 2018-12-31 17:25:51 Re: Is MinMaxExpr really leakproof?
Previous Message Nikolay Shaplov 2018-12-31 16:19:39 Re: [PATCH] check for ctags utility in make_ctags