| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Jim Nasby <Jim(dot)Nasby(at)bluetreble(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Jim Mlodgenski <jimmy76(at)gmail(dot)com>, PgHacker <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: mat views stats |
| Date: | 2017-02-26 16:49:21 |
| Message-ID: | CA+TgmobiJZSmYS7ieFTHaCS8kDWwfAVwE-BaLGcjGbdGax75Xg@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, Feb 22, 2017 at 11:13 AM, Jim Nasby <Jim(dot)Nasby(at)bluetreble(dot)com> wrote:
> Certainly easier, but I don't think it'd be better. Matviews really aren't
> the same thing as tables. Off-hand (without reviewing the patch), update and
> delete counts certainly wouldn't make any sense. "Insert" counts might, in
> as much as it's how many rows have been added by refreshes. You'd want a
> refresh count too.
Regular REFRESH truncates the view and repopulates it, but REFRESH
CONCURRENTLY does inserts, updates, and deletes as needed to adjust
the contents. So I think all the same counters that make sense for
regular tables are also sensible here.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Robert Haas | 2017-02-26 16:55:14 | Re: [patch] reorder tablespaces in basebackup tar stream for backup_label |
| Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2017-02-26 16:46:50 | Re: Proposal : For Auto-Prewarm. |