Re: Implementing Incremental View Maintenance

Adam Brusselback <adambrusselback@gmail.com>

From: Adam Brusselback <adambrusselback@gmail.com>
To: denty <denty@qqdd.eu>
Cc: Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Date: 2018-12-31T16:20:11Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers
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.

I am concerned that the eager approach only addresses a subset of the MV use
> case space, though. For example, if we presume that an MV is present
> because
> the underlying direct query would be non-performant, then we have to at
> least question whether applying the delta-update would also be detrimental
> to some use cases.
>

I will say that in my case, as long as my reads of the materialized view
are always consistent with the underlying data, that's what's important.  I
don't mind if it's eager, or lazy (as long as lazy still means it will
refresh prior to reading).