Fast path to REFRESH materialized view. #682
Merged
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
We already have the ability to track the data status for some materialized views, aware whether its data is up to date or not.
And we could avoid doing the real REFRESH if the data of view is up to date.
The no-refreshed data should be the logically same as after a real REFRESH when there is no data changed since latest REFRESH command.
In that case we may save a lot (read data from view query, compute and write into view table), ex: a cron task REFRESH view takes a long time and much resource periodically or executed manually by users each time.
New GUC: gp_enable_refresh_fast_path
Set this feature default to true, but let users decide if they intend to do a real REFRESH.
Performance
If the fast path is chosen, we always return immediately and almost do nothing.
And the cost we save depends on the amount of data, the resource we use to compute and the time we read and write back to view table.
Authored-by: Zhang Mingli [email protected]
fix #ISSUE_Number
Change logs
Describe your change clearly, including what problem is being solved or what feature is being added.
If it has some breaking backward or forward compatibility, please clary.
Why are the changes needed?
Describe why the changes are necessary.
Does this PR introduce any user-facing change?
If yes, please clarify the previous behavior and the change this PR proposes.
How was this patch tested?
Please detail how the changes were tested, including manual tests and any relevant unit or integration tests.
Contributor's Checklist
Here are some reminders and checklists before/when submitting your pull request, please check them:
make installcheckmake -C src/test installcheck-cbdb-parallelcloudberrydb/devteam for review and approval when your PR is ready🥳