| From: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Mark Mielke <mark(at)mark(dot)mielke(dot)cc> |
| Cc: | Jean-Michel Pouré <jm(at)poure(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Postgresql Materialized views |
| Date: | 2008-01-14 14:20:17 |
| Message-ID: | 20080114142017.GF4584@alvh.no-ip.org |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Mark Mielke wrote:
> Alvaro Herrera wrote:
>> But you had to modify your queries. I would think that a materialized
>> views implementation worth its salt would put the view to work on the
>> original, unmodified queries.
>
> I might be slow today (everyday? :-) ) - but what do you mean by this? The
> only difference between *_table and *_view is that *_table is the summary
> table and *_view is the view.
My point is that you should be able to query _table and the system
should automatically use the view, without you saying so (except by
initially creating them).
At least if you had eagerly-updated materialized views. If you had lazy
ones, I think those should be used explicitely only.
--
Alvaro Herrera http://www.CommandPrompt.com/
The PostgreSQL Company - Command Prompt, Inc.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Roberts, Jon | 2008-01-14 14:30:53 | Re: Postgresql Materialized views |
| Previous Message | tomas | 2008-01-14 14:09:10 | Re: Postgresql Materialized views |