Re: Performance of views

does anyone know if postgres support 'refresh' of applicable index(es) of a materialized view on refresh?

Thanks,
Martin
______________________________________________
Disclaimer and confidentiality note
Everything in this e-mail and any attachments relates to the official business of Sender. This transmission is of a confidential nature and Sender does not endorse distribution to any party other than intended recipient. Sender does not necessarily endorse content contained within this transmission.

> To: scott(dot)marlowe(at)gmail(dot)com
> CC: simon(dot)windsor(at)cornfield(dot)me(dot)uk; pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org
> Subject: Re: [GENERAL] Performance of views
> Date: Sun, 2 Nov 2008 21:22:24 -0500
> From: tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us
>
> "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
>
> --
> Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org)
> To make changes to your subscription:
> http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general

_________________________________________________________________
When your life is on the go—take your life with you.
http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/115298558/direct/01/