From: | Adam Brusselback <adambrusselback(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | "pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Incrementally refreshed materialized view |
Date: | 2016-09-26 20:16:52 |
Message-ID: | CAMjNa7eNS+b=KBYrVRXKWWcFg_4uxewbfKQDNPWyqzVyvwgYUw@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general |
On Mon, Sep 26, 2016 at 3:21 PM, Kevin Grittner <kgrittn(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 26, 2016 at 2:04 PM, Rakesh Kumar
> <rakeshkumar464(at)outlook(dot)com> wrote:
>
> > Does PG have a concept of MV log, from where it can detect the
> > delta changes and apply incremental changes quickly.
>
> That is what I am trying to work toward with the patch I cited in
> an earlier post. Once some variation of that is in, the actual
> incremental maintenance can be build on top of it. To see an
> example of what would be done with such a delta relation for a
> simple MV, using the count algorithm, see below:
>
Well I feel like I've learned a ton already reading through the links you
provided earlier and that example above.
I'm very interested in getting this into core. I'll look into what I need
to do to review. Not crazy familiar with C, as I mainly do Java
development. I'll see if I can help in any way though.
The main reason I was working on an alternative is because I need something
now rather than in a couple years, but I've been dealing with manually
creating the few I do need for my database. What I proposed above was just
me thinking about what could be done with things as they are. Obviously
it's junk compared to a real solution in-core. Would you consider my
approach even worth trying, or should I just suck it up and do things
manually for now and put that effort into getting incremental refresh into
core?
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Kevin Grittner | 2016-09-26 20:34:43 | Re: Incrementally refreshed materialized view |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2016-09-26 19:38:03 | Re: [GENERAL] inconsistent behaviour of set-returning functions in sub-query with random() |