Horton
Menu

Thread

  1. GSoC - code of implementation of materialized views

    Pavel Baroš <baros.p@seznam.cz> — 2010-06-25T15:12:17Z

    On http://github.com/pbaros/postgres can be seen changes and my attempt 
to implement materialized views. The first commit to the repository 
implements following:

Materialized view can be created, dropped and used in SELECT statement.

CREATE MATERIALIZED VIEW mvname AS SELECT ...;
DROP MATERIALIZED VIEW mvname [CASCADE];
SELECT * FROM mvname;

also works:
COMMENT ON MATERIALIZED VIEW mvname IS 'etc.';
SELECT pg_get_viewdef(mvname);



Also, I would like to ask for advise if there are rules about specifying 
keyword is reserved or unreserved. How I recognize new keywords 
MATERIALIZED and REFRESH should be reserved or not.

thanks

Pavel Baros

  2. Re: GSoC - code of implementation of materialized views

    Pavel Baroš <baros.p@seznam.cz> — 2010-06-25T18:24:32Z

    > On http://github.com/pbaros/postgres can be seen changes and my attempt 
> to implement materialized views. The first commit to the repository 
> implements following:
> 
> Materialized view can be created, dropped and used in SELECT statement.
> 
> CREATE MATERIALIZED VIEW mvname AS SELECT ...;
> DROP MATERIALIZED VIEW mvname [CASCADE];
> SELECT * FROM mvname;
> 
> also works:
> COMMENT ON MATERIALIZED VIEW mvname IS 'etc.';
> SELECT pg_get_viewdef(mvname);


... also you can look at enclosed patch.

  3. Re: GSoC - code of implementation of materialized views

    Simon Riggs <simon@2ndquadrant.com> — 2010-06-27T11:52:17Z

    On Fri, 2010-06-25 at 20:24 +0200, Pavel Baros wrote:

> ... also you can look at enclosed patch.

No tests == no patch

Always best to work on the tests first, so everybody can see the syntax
you are proposing, and also see if your patch actually works. Otherwise
you may find people disagree and then you are faced with extensive
rework.

-- 
 Simon Riggs           www.2ndQuadrant.com
 PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training and Services

  4. Re: GSoC - code of implementation of materialized views

    David Fetter <david@fetter.org> — 2010-06-27T19:40:44Z

    On Sun, Jun 27, 2010 at 12:52:17PM +0100, Simon Riggs wrote:
> On Fri, 2010-06-25 at 20:24 +0200, Pavel Baros wrote:
> 
> > ... also you can look at enclosed patch.
> 
> No tests == no patch

This isn't quite how I'd have phrased it, and it would be nice if
nobody phrased advice quite this way. :)

In order for a patch to be accepted, it needs to include both SGML
docs if it changes user-visible behavior, and tests for any new
behaviors it has created.  This is the project standard, and it or
something very like it is a good standard for just about any project,
as it gives people some ways to test intent vs. effect.

Do you want some help with creating same?

Cheers,
David.
-- 
David Fetter <david@fetter.org> http://fetter.org/
Phone: +1 415 235 3778  AIM: dfetter666  Yahoo!: dfetter
Skype: davidfetter      XMPP: david.fetter@gmail.com
iCal: webcal://www.tripit.com/feed/ical/people/david74/tripit.ics

Remember to vote!
Consider donating to Postgres: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate

  5. Re: GSoC - code of implementation of materialized views

    Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> — 2010-06-29T16:03:21Z

    2010/6/25 Pavel Baros <baros.p@seznam.cz>:
>> On http://github.com/pbaros/postgres can be seen changes and my attempt to
>> implement materialized views. The first commit to the repository implements
>> following:
>>
>> Materialized view can be created, dropped and used in SELECT statement.
>>
>> CREATE MATERIALIZED VIEW mvname AS SELECT ...;
>> DROP MATERIALIZED VIEW mvname [CASCADE];
>> SELECT * FROM mvname;
>>
>> also works:
>> COMMENT ON MATERIALIZED VIEW mvname IS 'etc.';
>> SELECT pg_get_viewdef(mvname);
>
>
> ... also you can look at enclosed patch.

So, this patch doesn't actually seem to do very much.  It doesn't
appear that creating the materialized view actually populates it with
any data; and the refresh command doesn't work either.  So it appears
that you can create a "materialized view", but it won't actually
contain any data - which doesn't seem at all useful.

Some other problems:

- The command tag for CREATE MATERIALIZED VIEW should return CREATE
MATERIALIZED VIEW rather than CREATE VIEW, since we're treating it as
a separate object type.  I note that dropping a materialized view
already uses DROP MATERIALIZED VIEW, so right now it isn't
symmetrical.
- Using "\d" with no argument doesn't list materialized views.
- Using "\d" with a materialized view as an argument doesn't work
properly - the first line says something like ?m? "public.m" instead
of materialized view "public.m".
- Using "\d+" with a materialized view as an argument should probably
should the view definition.
- Using "\dd" doesn't list comments on materialized views.
- Commenting on a column of a materialized view should probably be allowed.
- pg_dump fails with a message like this: failed sanity check, parent
table OID 24604 of pg_rewrite entry OID 24607 not found
- ALTER MATERIALIZED VIEW name OWNER TO role, RENAME TO role, and SET
SCHEMA schema either fall to work or fail to parse (plan ALTER VIEW
also doesn't work on a materialized view)
- ALTER MATERIALIZED VIEW name SET/DROP DEFAULT also doesn't work,
which is OK: it shouldn't work.  But the error message needs work.
- The error message "CREATE OR REPLACE on materialized view is not
support!" shouldn't end with an exclamation point.
- The parser token OptMater should probably be called OptMaterialized
or opt_materialized, rather than abbreviating.
- There are no docs.
- There are no tests.

-- 
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise Postgres Company

  6. Re: GSoC - code of implementation of materialized views

    Pavel Baroš <baros.p@seznam.cz> — 2010-06-29T20:31:31Z

    Robert Haas napsal(a):
> 2010/6/25 Pavel Baros <baros.p@seznam.cz>:
>   
>>> On http://github.com/pbaros/postgres can be seen changes and my attempt to
>>> implement materialized views. The first commit to the repository implements
>>> following:
>>>
>>> Materialized view can be created, dropped and used in SELECT statement.
>>>
>>> CREATE MATERIALIZED VIEW mvname AS SELECT ...;
>>> DROP MATERIALIZED VIEW mvname [CASCADE];
>>> SELECT * FROM mvname;
>>>
>>> also works:
>>> COMMENT ON MATERIALIZED VIEW mvname IS 'etc.';
>>> SELECT pg_get_viewdef(mvname);
>>>       
>> ... also you can look at enclosed patch.
>>     
>
> So, this patch doesn't actually seem to do very much.  It doesn't
> appear that creating the materialized view actually populates it with
> any data; and the refresh command doesn't work either.  So it appears
> that you can create a "materialized view", but it won't actually
> contain any data - which doesn't seem at all useful.
>
>   

Yeah, it is my fault, I did not mentioned that this patch is not final. 
It is only small part of whole implementation. I wanted to show just 
this, because I think that is the part that should not change much. And 
to show I did something, I am not ignoring GSoC. Now I can fully focus 
on the program.

Most of the problems you mentioned (except pg_dump) I have implemented 
and I will post it to HACKERS soon. Until now I've not had much time, 
because I just finished my BSc. studies yesterday.

And again, sorry for misunderstanding.

Pavel Baros

> Some other problems:
>
> - The command tag for CREATE MATERIALIZED VIEW should return CREATE
> MATERIALIZED VIEW rather than CREATE VIEW, since we're treating it as
> a separate object type.  I note that dropping a materialized view
> already uses DROP MATERIALIZED VIEW, so right now it isn't
> symmetrical.
> - Using "\d" with no argument doesn't list materialized views.
> - Using "\d" with a materialized view as an argument doesn't work
> properly - the first line says something like ?m? "public.m" instead
> of materialized view "public.m".
> - Using "\d+" with a materialized view as an argument should probably
> should the view definition.
> - Using "\dd" doesn't list comments on materialized views.
> - Commenting on a column of a materialized view should probably be allowed.
> - pg_dump fails with a message like this: failed sanity check, parent
> table OID 24604 of pg_rewrite entry OID 24607 not found
> - ALTER MATERIALIZED VIEW name OWNER TO role, RENAME TO role, and SET
> SCHEMA schema either fall to work or fail to parse (plan ALTER VIEW
> also doesn't work on a materialized view)
> - ALTER MATERIALIZED VIEW name SET/DROP DEFAULT also doesn't work,
> which is OK: it shouldn't work.  But the error message needs work.
> - The error message "CREATE OR REPLACE on materialized view is not
> support!" shouldn't end with an exclamation point.
> - The parser token OptMater should probably be called OptMaterialized
> or opt_materialized, rather than abbreviating.
> - There are no docs.
> - There are no tests.
>
>

  7. Re: GSoC - code of implementation of materialized views

    David Christensen <david@endpoint.com> — 2010-06-29T21:28:10Z

    On Jun 29, 2010, at 3:31 PM, Pavel Baroš wrote:

> Robert Haas napsal(a):
>> 2010/6/25 Pavel Baros <baros.p@seznam.cz>:
>>  
>>>> On http://github.com/pbaros/postgres can be seen changes and my attempt to
>>>> implement materialized views. The first commit to the repository implements
>>>> following:
>>>> 
>>>> Materialized view can be created, dropped and used in SELECT statement.
>>>> 
>>>> CREATE MATERIALIZED VIEW mvname AS SELECT ...;
>>>> DROP MATERIALIZED VIEW mvname [CASCADE];
>>>> SELECT * FROM mvname;
>>>> 
>>>> also works:
>>>> COMMENT ON MATERIALIZED VIEW mvname IS 'etc.';
>>>> SELECT pg_get_viewdef(mvname);
>>>>      
>>> ... also you can look at enclosed patch.
>>>    
>> 
>> So, this patch doesn't actually seem to do very much.  It doesn't
>> appear that creating the materialized view actually populates it with
>> any data; and the refresh command doesn't work either.  So it appears
>> that you can create a "materialized view", but it won't actually
>> contain any data - which doesn't seem at all useful.
>> 
>>  
> 
> Yeah, it is my fault, I did not mentioned that this patch is not final. It is only small part of whole implementation. I wanted to show just this, because I think that is the part that should not change much. And to show I did something, I am not ignoring GSoC. Now I can fully focus on the program.
> 
> Most of the problems you mentioned (except pg_dump) I have implemented and I will post it to HACKERS soon. Until now I've not had much time, because I just finished my BSc. studies yesterday.
> 
> And again, sorry for misunderstanding.
> 
> Pavel Baros
> 
>> Some other problems:
>> 
>> - The command tag for CREATE MATERIALIZED VIEW should return CREATE
>> MATERIALIZED VIEW rather than CREATE VIEW, since we're treating it as
>> a separate object type.  I note that dropping a materialized view
>> already uses DROP MATERIALIZED VIEW, so right now it isn't
>> symmetrical.
>> - Using "\d" with no argument doesn't list materialized views.
>> - Using "\d" with a materialized view as an argument doesn't work
>> properly - the first line says something like ?m? "public.m" instead
>> of materialized view "public.m".
>> - Using "\d+" with a materialized view as an argument should probably
>> should the view definition.
>> - Using "\dd" doesn't list comments on materialized views.
>> - Commenting on a column of a materialized view should probably be allowed.
>> - pg_dump fails with a message like this: failed sanity check, parent
>> table OID 24604 of pg_rewrite entry OID 24607 not found
>> - ALTER MATERIALIZED VIEW name OWNER TO role, RENAME TO role, and SET
>> SCHEMA schema either fall to work or fail to parse (plan ALTER VIEW
>> also doesn't work on a materialized view)
>> - ALTER MATERIALIZED VIEW name SET/DROP DEFAULT also doesn't work,
>> which is OK: it shouldn't work.  But the error message needs work.
>> - The error message "CREATE OR REPLACE on materialized view is not
>> support!" shouldn't end with an exclamation point.

Do we see supporting the creation of a materialized view from a regular view, as in ALTER VIEW regular_view SET MATERIALIZED or some such?

Since we're treating this as a distinct object type, instead of repeatedly typing "MATERIALIZED VIEW", is there a possibility of  introducing a keyword alias "MATVIEW" without complicating the grammar/code all that much, or is that frowned upon?  Paintbrushes, anyone?

Regards,

David
--
David Christensen
End Point Corporation
david@endpoint.com

  8. Re: GSoC - code of implementation of materialized views

    Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> — 2010-06-30T01:18:53Z

    2010/6/29 David Christensen <david@endpoint.com>:
> Do we see supporting the creation of a materialized view from a regular view, as in ALTER VIEW regular_view SET MATERIALIZED or some such?

I'm not sure.  I think we should focus our efforts on (1) getting it
to work at all and then (2) improving the performance of the refresh
operation, which will doubtless be pessimal in the initial
implementation.  Those are big enough problems that I'm not inclined
to spend much thought on bells and whistles at this point.

> Since we're treating this as a distinct object type, instead of repeatedly typing "MATERIALIZED VIEW", is there a possibility of  introducing a keyword alias "MATVIEW" without complicating the grammar/code all that much, or is that frowned upon?  Paintbrushes, anyone?

-1 from me, but IJWH.

By the way, does the SQL standard say anything about materialized views?

-- 
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise Postgres Company

  9. Re: GSoC - code of implementation of materialized views

    Nicolas Barbier <nicolas.barbier@gmail.com> — 2010-06-30T07:06:57Z

    2010/6/30 Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>:

> By the way, does the SQL standard say anything about materialized views?

AFAIK, nope. Probably for the same reason that indexes are not
mentioned by the standard: both are only performance enhancements, and
one could easily imagine future SQL database systems that manage their
creation and removal automatically (based on usage patterns or
available disk space or somesuch).

Nicolas

  10. Re: GSoC - code of implementation of materialized views

    Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> — 2010-07-08T10:33:32Z

    2010/6/29 Pavel Baroš <baros.p@seznam.cz>:
> Yeah, it is my fault, I did not mentioned that this patch is not final. It
> is only small part of whole implementation. I wanted to show just this,
> because I think that is the part that should not change much. And to show I
> did something, I am not ignoring GSoC. Now I can fully focus on the program.
>
> Most of the problems you mentioned (except pg_dump) I have implemented and I
> will post it to HACKERS soon. Until now I've not had much time, because I
> just finished my BSc. studies yesterday.

Any update on this?

-- 
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise Postgres Company

  11. Re: GSoC - code of implementation of materialized views

    Pavel Baroš <baros.p@seznam.cz> — 2010-07-08T13:09:06Z

    Dne 8.7.2010 12:33, Robert Haas napsal(a):
> 2010/6/29 Pavel Baroš<baros.p@seznam.cz>:
>    
>> Yeah, it is my fault, I did not mentioned that this patch is not final. It
>> is only small part of whole implementation. I wanted to show just this,
>> because I think that is the part that should not change much. And to show I
>> did something, I am not ignoring GSoC. Now I can fully focus on the program.
>>
>> Most of the problems you mentioned (except pg_dump) I have implemented and I
>> will post it to HACKERS soon. Until now I've not had much time, because I
>> just finished my BSc. studies yesterday.
>>      
> Any update on this?
>
>    
Sure, sorry for delay, I updated code on 
http://github.com/pbaros/postgres just a few minutes ago. Today I'll 
post patch here on HACKERS with my comments.

Pavel Baros

  12. Re: GSoC - code of implementation of materialized views

    Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> — 2010-07-08T13:22:12Z

    On Thu, Jul 8, 2010 at 9:09 AM, Pavel <baros.p@seznam.cz> wrote:
> Any update on this?
>
> Sure, sorry for delay, I updated code on http://github.com/pbaros/postgres
> just a few minutes ago. Today I'll post patch here on HACKERS with my
> comments.

It's a little hard for me to understand what's going on via the git
repo, but it looks like you've introduced a bunch of spurious
whitespace changes in OpenIntoRel.  Don't let it delay you from
posting the patch, but do please clean them up as soon as you get a
chance.

-- 
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise Postgres Company

  13. Re: GSoC - code of implementation of materialized views

    Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> — 2010-07-08T13:23:02Z

    On Thu, Jul 8, 2010 at 9:22 AM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 8, 2010 at 9:09 AM, Pavel <baros.p@seznam.cz> wrote:
>> Any update on this?
>>
>> Sure, sorry for delay, I updated code on http://github.com/pbaros/postgres
>> just a few minutes ago. Today I'll post patch here on HACKERS with my
>> comments.
>
> It's a little hard for me to understand what's going on via the git
> repo, but it looks like you've introduced a bunch of spurious
> whitespace changes in OpenIntoRel.  Don't let it delay you from
> posting the patch, but do please clean them up as soon as you get a
> chance.

Never mind... I see what you did.  It's fine.

/me blushes

-- 
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise Postgres Company