Re: Implementing Incremental View Maintenance

From: Yugo NAGATA <nagata(at)sraoss(dot)co(dot)jp>
To: Adam Brusselback <adambrusselback(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Tatsuo Ishii <ishii(at)sraoss(dot)co(dot)jp>
Subject: Re: Implementing Incremental View Maintenance
Date: 2020-10-22 03:21:26
Message-ID: 20201022122126.17ffad7ec5efea045ccfa580@sraoss.co.jp
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Hi Adam Brusselback,

On Mon, 31 Dec 2018 11:20:11 -0500
Adam Brusselback <adambrusselback(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:

> 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.

We are want to find sutable use cases of the IVM patch being discussed in this
thread, and I remembered your post that said you used statement triggers and
custom functions. We hope the patch will help you.

The patch implements IVM of immediate, that is, eager approach. Materialized
views are updated immediately when its base tables are modified. While the view
is always up-to-date, there is a overhead on base table modification.

We would appreciate it if you could tell us what your use cases of materialized
view is and whether our implementation suits your needs or not.

Regards,
Yugo Nagata

--
Yugo NAGATA <nagata(at)sraoss(dot)co(dot)jp>

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Thomas Munro 2020-10-22 03:35:27 Re: [Patch] Optimize dropping of relation buffers using dlist
Previous Message David G. Johnston 2020-10-22 03:09:35 Re: A new function to wait for the backend exit after termination