| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Scott Marlowe" <scott(dot)marlowe(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | "Simon Windsor" <simon(dot)windsor(at)cornfield(dot)me(dot)uk>, pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Performance of views |
| Date: | 2008-11-03 02:22:24 |
| Message-ID: | 5267.1225678944@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general |
"Scott Marlowe" <scott(dot)marlowe(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> Note that, at least in older versions, MySQL completely materialized a
> temporary table from a view, then used that for the view. This is
> horribly inefficient, and results in a lot of people thinking views
> are slow. Not sure if this has been addressed in MySQL yet, don't
> really care anymore, since I rarely use mysql for anything anymore.
Some simple experiments with mysql 5.0.67 suggest that this meme is
obsolete there too. I found some cases where it looks like we optimize
a bit better than they do, but for simple views you seem to get the
same plan as if you'd written out the equivalent query in-line.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Nikolas Everett | 2008-11-03 02:32:42 | Re: Performance of views |
| Previous Message | Sam Mason | 2008-11-03 02:19:14 | Re: Are there plans to add data compression feature to postgresql? |