From: | Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net> |
---|---|
To: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com> |
Cc: | Kouhei Kaigai <kaigai(at)ak(dot)jp(dot)nec(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, PgHacker <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Shigeru Hanada <shigeru(dot)hanada(at)gmail(dot)com>, Jim Mlodgenski <jimmy76(at)gmail(dot)com>, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, Kohei KaiGai <kaigai(at)kaigai(dot)gr(dot)jp> |
Subject: | Re: [v9.5] Custom Plan API |
Date: | 2014-05-08 13:49:04 |
Message-ID: | 20140508134904.GR2556@tamriel.snowman.net |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Simon,
Perhaps you've changed your proposal wrt LOOKASIDES's and I've missed it
somewhere in the thread, but this is what I was referring to with my
concerns regarding per-relation definition of 'LOOKASIDES':
* Simon Riggs (simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com) wrote:
> Roughly, I'm thinking of this...
>
> CREATE LOOKASIDE ON foo
> TO foo_mat_view;
>
> and also this...
>
> CREATE LOOKASIDE ON foo
> TO foo_as_a_foreign_table /* e.g. PGStrom */
where I took 'foo' to mean 'a relation'.
Your downthread comments on 'CREATE MATERIALIZED VIEW' are in the same
vein, though there I agree that we need it per-relation as there are
other trade-offs to consider (storage costs of the matview, cost to
maintain the matview, etc, similar to indexes).
The PGStrom proposal, aiui, is to add a new join type which supports
using a GPU to answer a query where all the data is in regular PG
tables. I'd like that to "just work" when a GPU is available (perhaps
modulo having to install some extension), for any join which is costed
to be cheaper/faster when done that way.
Thanks,
Stephen
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Andres Freund | 2014-05-08 13:49:07 | Re: New pg_lsn type doesn't have hash/btree opclasses |
Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2014-05-08 13:47:01 | Re: default opclass for jsonb (was Re: Call for GIST/GIN/SP-GIST opclass documentation) |