Re: [WIP]Vertical Clustered Index (columnar store extension) - take2
От | Peter Smith |
---|---|
Тема | Re: [WIP]Vertical Clustered Index (columnar store extension) - take2 |
Дата | |
Msg-id | CAHut+Pvr0SM5yehYpay7Mk+fgvq20SFGBYeySxRfDuFs7qvh9g@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: [WIP]Vertical Clustered Index (columnar store extension) - take2 (Japin Li <japinli@hotmail.com>) |
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, Jul 30, 2025 at 4:39 PM Japin Li <japinli@hotmail.com> wrote: > > On Wed, 30 Jul 2025 at 14:49, Peter Smith <smithpb2250@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Fri, Jul 25, 2025 at 1:58 PM Japin Li <japinli@hotmail.com> wrote: > >> > >> On Wed, 23 Jul 2025 at 14:07, Peter Smith <smithpb2250@gmail.com> wrote: > >> > On Tue, Jul 22, 2025 at 8:12 PM Japin Li <japinli@hotmail.com> wrote: > >> > ... > > ... > >> >> > >> >> Or is it by design that users are unable to read the internal relations? > >> >> > >> > > >> > IIUC, those VCI internal relations (implemented as materialized views) > >> > are entirely managed by VCI logic. Users are not required to be aware > >> > of them, and they definitely are not meant to tamper with them. > >> > > >> > >> Thanks for your explanation! > >> > >> > The REFRESH that you attempted should have caused a more graceful error, like: > >> > ERROR: extension "vci" prohibits this operation on view > >> > "vci_0000016482_00000_d" > >> > So, thanks for reporting that the ERROR failed. Investigating... > >> > >> I'm considering storing this metadata in heap tables, as Citus Columnar [1] > >> and TimescaleDB [2] also utilize them for some metadata. Is this a sound > >> approach? I'm wondering if this is a suitable strategy for VCI? > >> > >> [1] https://github.com/citusdata/citus/blob/main/src/backend/columnar/columnar_metadata.c#L174 > >> [2] https://github.com/timescale/timescaledb/blob/main/src/chunk.c#L151 > >> > > > > Hi Japin, > > > > TL;DR; > > ------ > > What metadata relations did you have in mind to change, how do you > > want to change them, and what is the main motivation? > > > > I've noticed a strange user experience with vci_xxx_{d,m}. Although they are > defined as materialized views, they cannot be queried, leading to an error > that suggests using REFRESH MATERIALIZED VIEW. However, that command is also > rejected. This is my motivation. FYI, the query is made possible now in v16. The result will be meaningless, but the error and misleading HINT will no longer happen. ====== Kind Regards, Peter Smith. Fujitsu Australia
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: