Re: Postgresql Materialized views

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: Raw Message | Whole Thread | 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.

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  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