Re: Indexed views?

From: Doug McNaught <doug(at)mcnaught(dot)org>
To: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)dcc(dot)uchile(dot)cl>
Cc: Tiago Wright <tiagowright(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Indexed views?
Date: 2004-09-08 02:21:22
Message-ID: 87ekldec0t.fsf@asmodeus.mcnaught.org
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)dcc(dot)uchile(dot)cl> writes:

> On Tue, Sep 07, 2004 at 07:58:56PM -0400, Doug McNaught wrote:

>> Hard to say how it would work, but come up with a good design and
>> quality patch and it'll probably go in. :)
>
> Probably not. This has been discussed before; what's needed is that the
> visibility information is stored also in the index. This is hard and
> inefficient to do, because it requires updating the index at the same
> time that the heap is updated. Which is a bad proposition as soon as
> there is more than one index, and when there is a seqscan involved (i.e.
> no index), because it means a lot of extra I/O.

Yeah, hence the smiley.

-Doug
--
Let us cross over the river, and rest under the shade of the trees.
--T. J. Jackson, 1863

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2004-09-08 02:36:43 Re: Indexed views?
Previous Message Tom Lane 2004-09-08 02:12:17 Re: Making AFTER triggers act properly in PL functions