Re: Incrementally refreshed materialized view

From: Adam Brusselback <adambrusselback(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: "pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Incrementally refreshed materialized view
Date: 2016-09-26 20:16:52
Message-ID: CAMjNa7eNS+b=KBYrVRXKWWcFg_4uxewbfKQDNPWyqzVyvwgYUw@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-general

On Mon, Sep 26, 2016 at 3:21 PM, Kevin Grittner <kgrittn(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:

> On Mon, Sep 26, 2016 at 2:04 PM, Rakesh Kumar
> <rakeshkumar464(at)outlook(dot)com> wrote:
>
> > Does PG have a concept of MV log, from where it can detect the
> > delta changes and apply incremental changes quickly.
>
> That is what I am trying to work toward with the patch I cited in
> an earlier post. Once some variation of that is in, the actual
> incremental maintenance can be build on top of it. To see an
> example of what would be done with such a delta relation for a
> simple MV, using the count algorithm, see below:
>

Well I feel like I've learned a ton already reading through the links you
provided earlier and that example above.

I'm very interested in getting this into core. I'll look into what I need
to do to review. Not crazy familiar with C, as I mainly do Java
development. I'll see if I can help in any way though.

The main reason I was working on an alternative is because I need something
now rather than in a couple years, but I've been dealing with manually
creating the few I do need for my database. What I proposed above was just
me thinking about what could be done with things as they are. Obviously
it's junk compared to a real solution in-core. Would you consider my
approach even worth trying, or should I just suck it up and do things
manually for now and put that effort into getting incremental refresh into
core?

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-general by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Kevin Grittner 2016-09-26 20:34:43 Re: Incrementally refreshed materialized view
Previous Message Tom Lane 2016-09-26 19:38:03 Re: [GENERAL] inconsistent behaviour of set-returning functions in sub-query with random()