From: | Tim Cross <theophilusx(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Steven Lembark <lembark(at)wrkhors(dot)com> |
Cc: | pgsql-general(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Long running INSERT+SELECT query |
Date: | 2018-04-27 22:04:49 |
Message-ID: | 87lgd8cnlq.fsf@gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general |
Steven Lembark <lembark(at)wrkhors(dot)com> writes:
> On Fri, 27 Apr 2018 19:38:15 +0300
> Vitaliy Garnashevich <vgarnashevich(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
>> We're going to try using "SELECT 1 FROM table FOR KEY SHARE" for each of
>> the tables, which are referenced by results, before running the big
>> query. That should be up to a million of rows in total. It will probably
>> not cover the case when a record is INSERT'ed and then DELETE'd after
>> the calculation has begun, but such cases should be even more rare than
>> the DELETE's we're currently facing.
>
> Thing about using a couple of Materialized Views for the worst
> part of it.
+1 re: materialised views - I have found them to be extremely useful for
situations where you want a snapshot of data and need to present it in a
way which is easier to process, especially when the underlying data is
changing faster than your reporting process can generate the report.
--
Tim Cross
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | g@luxsci.net | 2018-04-27 22:52:39 | Re: Rationale for aversion to the central database? |
Previous Message | Merlin Moncure | 2018-04-27 20:36:30 | Re: Rationale for aversion to the central database? |