Re: Materialized View or table?

From: Jim Nasby <Jim(dot)Nasby(at)BlueTreble(dot)com>
To: Johann Spies <johann(dot)spies(at)gmail(dot)com>, "pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Materialized View or table?
Date: 2015-09-15 07:30:51
Message-ID: 55F7C92B.8070204@BlueTreble.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-general

On 9/15/15 2:14 AM, Johann Spies wrote:
> What are the pro's and con's of large materialized views vs. tables in a
> case like this?

AFAIK a matview is essentially the same as a table under the covers, so
I don't believe there's any reason not to use one. At some point we'll
have incremental refresh of some sort, which might help in your case.
--
Jim Nasby, Data Architect, Blue Treble Consulting, Austin TX
Experts in Analytics, Data Architecture and PostgreSQL
Data in Trouble? Get it in Treble! http://BlueTreble.com

In response to

Browse pgsql-general by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Sylvain MARECHAL 2015-09-15 08:01:44 BDR truncate and replication sets
Previous Message Jim Nasby 2015-09-15 07:27:30 Re: pgpass (in)flexibility