|From:||Yugo Nagata <nagata(at)sraoss(dot)co(dot)jp>|
|Cc:||Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)gmail(dot)com>, Takuma Hoshiai <hoshiai(at)sraoss(dot)co(dot)jp>, Kevin Grittner <kgrittn(at)gmail(dot)com>|
|Subject:||Re: Implementing Incremental View Maintenance|
|Views:||Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email|
I've updated the wiki page of Incremental View Maintenance.
On Thu, 11 Jul 2019 13:28:04 +0900
Yugo Nagata <nagata(at)sraoss(dot)co(dot)jp> wrote:
> Hi Thomas,
> Thank you for your review and discussion on this patch!
> > > 2019年7月8日(月) 15:32 Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)gmail(dot)com>:
> > >
> > > > On Fri, Jun 28, 2019 at 10:56 PM Yugo Nagata <nagata(at)sraoss(dot)co(dot)jp> wrote:
> > > > > Attached is a WIP patch of IVM which supports some aggregate functions.
> > > >
> > > > Hi Nagata-san and Hoshiai-san,
> > > >
> > > > Thank you for working on this. I enjoyed your talk at PGCon. I've
> > > > added Kevin Grittner just in case he missed this thread; he has talked
> > > > often about implementing the counting algorithm, and he wrote the
> > > > "trigger transition tables" feature to support exactly this. While
> > > > integrating trigger transition tables with the new partition features,
> > > > we had to make a number of decisions about how that should work, and
> > > > we tried to come up with answers that would work for IMV, and I hope
> > > > we made the right choices!
> Transition tables is a great feature. I am now using this in my implementation
> of IVM, but the first time I used this feature was when I implemented a PoC
> for extending view updatability of PostgreSQL. At that time, I didn't know
> that this feature is made originally aiming to support IVM.
>  https://www.pgcon.org/2017/schedule/events/1074.en.html
> I think transition tables is a good choice to implement a statement level
> immediate view maintenance where materialized views are refreshed in a statement
> level after trigger. However, when implementing a transaction level immediate
> view maintenance where views are refreshed per transaction, or deferred view
> maintenance, we can't update views in a after trigger, and we will need an
> infrastructure to manage change logs of base tables. Transition tables can be
> used to collect these logs, but using logical decoding of WAL is another candidate.
> In any way, if these logs can be collected in a tuplestore, we might able to
> convert this to "ephemeral named relation (ENR)" and use this to calculate diff
> sets for views.
> > > >
> > > > I am quite interested to learn how IVM interacts with SERIALIZABLE.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Nagata-san has been studying this. Nagata-san, any comment?
> In SERIALIZABLE or REPEATABLE READ level, table changes occurred in other
> ransactions are not visible, so views can not be maintained correctly in AFTER
> triggers. If a view is defined on two tables and each table is modified in
> different concurrent transactions respectively, the result of view maintenance
> done in trigger functions can be incorrect due to the race condition. This is the
> reason why such transactions are aborted immediately in that case in my current
> One idea to resolve this is performing view maintenance in two phases. Firstly,
> views are updated using only table changes visible in this transaction. Then,
> just after this transaction is committed, views have to be updated additionally
> using changes happened in other transactions to keep consistency. This is a just
> idea, but to implement this idea, I think, we will need keep to keep and
> maintain change logs.
> > > > A couple of superficial review comments:
> > > > + const char *aggname = get_func_name(aggref->aggfnoid);
> > > > ...
> > > > + else if (!strcmp(aggname, "sum"))
> > > >
> > > > I guess you need a more robust way to detect the supported aggregates
> > > > than their name, or I guess some way for aggregates themselves to
> > > > specify that they support this and somehow supply the extra logic.
> > > > Perhaps I just waid what Greg Stark already said, except not as well.
> Yes. Using name is not robust because users can make same name aggregates like
> sum(text) (although I am not sure this makes sense). We can use oids instead
> of names, but it would be nice to extend pg_aggregate and add new attributes
> for informing that this supports IVM and for providing functions for IVM logic.
> > > > As for the question of how
> > > > to reserve a namespace for system columns that won't clash with user
> > > > columns, according to our manual the SQL standard doesn't allow $ in
> > > > identifier names, and according to my copy SQL92 "intermediate SQL"
> > > > doesn't allow identifiers that end in an underscore. I don't know
> > > > what the best answer is but we should probably decide on a something
> > > > based the standard.
> Ok, so we should use "__ivm_count__" since this ends in "_" at least.
> Another idea is that users specify the name of this special column when
> defining materialized views with IVM support. This way can avoid the conflict
> because users will specify a name which does not appear in the target list.
> As for aggregates supports, it may be also possible to make it a restriction
> that count(expr) must be in the target list explicitly when sum(expr) or
> avg(expr) is included, instead of making hidden column like __ivm_count_sum__,
> like Oracle does.
> > > >
> > > > As for how to make internal columns invisible to SELECT *, previously
> > > > there have been discussions about doing that using a new flag in
> > > > pg_attribute:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/flat/CAEepm%3D3ZHh%3Dp0nEEnVbs1Dig_UShPzHUcMNAqvDQUgYgcDo-pA%40mail.gmail.com
> I agree implementing this feature in PostgreSQL since there are at least a few
> use cases, IVM and temporal database.
> > > >
> > > > + "WITH t AS ("
> > > > + " SELECT diff.__ivm_count__,
> > > > (diff.__ivm_count__ = mv.__ivm_count__) AS for_dlt, mv.ctid"
> > > > + ", %s"
> > > > + " FROM %s AS mv, %s AS diff WHERE (%s) =
> > > > (%s)"
> > > > + "), updt AS ("
> > > > + " UPDATE %s AS mv SET __ivm_count__ =
> > > > mv.__ivm_count__ - t.__ivm_count__"
> > > > + ", %s "
> > > > + " FROM t WHERE mv.ctid = t.ctid AND NOT
> > > > for_dlt"
> > > > + ") DELETE FROM %s AS mv USING t WHERE
> > > > mv.ctid = t.ctid AND for_dlt;",
> > > >
> > > > I fully understand that this is POC code, but I am curious about one
> > > > thing. These queries that are executed by apply_delta() would need to
> > > > be converted to C, or at least used reusable plans, right? Hmm,
> > > > creating and dropping temporary tables every time is a clue that the
> > > > ultimate form of this should be tuplestores and C code, I think,
> > > > right?
> I used SPI just because REFRESH CONCURRENTLY uses this, but, as you said,
> it is inefficient to create/drop temp tables and perform parse/plan every times.
> It seems to be enough to perform this once when creating materialized views or
> at the first maintenance time.
> Best regards,
> Yugo Nagata
> Yugo Nagata <nagata(at)sraoss(dot)co(dot)jp>
Yugo Nagata <nagata(at)sraoss(dot)co(dot)jp>
|Next Message||Peter Geoghegan||2019-07-26 02:54:21||Re: Patch for SortSupport implementation on inet/cdir|
|Previous Message||Jonathan S. Katz||2019-07-26 02:03:06||Re: [Proposal] Table-level Transparent Data Encryption (TDE) and Key Management Service (KMS)|