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 (si...@2ndquadrant.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
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
