Re: Performance degradation of REFRESH MATERIALIZED VIEW

From: Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>
To: Tomas Vondra <tomas(dot)vondra(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>
Cc: Masahiko Sawada <sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com>, Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>, Bharath Rupireddy <bharath(dot)rupireddyforpostgres(at)gmail(dot)com>, Kyotaro Horiguchi <horikyota(dot)ntt(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Pavan Deolasee <pavan(dot)deolasee(at)gmail(dot)com>, Anastasia Lubennikova <a(dot)lubennikova(at)postgrespro(dot)ru>, Jeff Janes <jeff(dot)janes(at)gmail(dot)com>, Paul Guo <guopa(at)vmware(dot)com>
Subject: Re: Performance degradation of REFRESH MATERIALIZED VIEW
Date: 2021-05-24 18:21:19
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Lists: pgsql-hackers


On 2021-05-24 12:37:18 +0200, Tomas Vondra wrote:
> Another option might be changes in the binary layout - 5% change is well
> within the range that could be attributed to this, but it feels very
> hand-wavy and more like an excuse than real analysis.

I don't think 5% is likely to be explained by binary layout unless you
look for an explicitly adverse layout.

> Hmmm, thanks for reminding us that patch. Why did we reject that approach in
> favor of the current one?

Don't know about others, but I think it's way too fragile.


Andres Freund

In response to


Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2021-05-24 20:44:30 Re: CALL versus procedures with output-only arguments
Previous Message Tom Lane 2021-05-24 18:21:04 Re: Test of a partition with an incomplete detach has a timing issue