Re: Materialized view vs. view

From: Kevin Grittner <kgrittn(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Melvin Davidson <melvin6925(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Adrian Klaver <adrian(dot)klaver(at)aklaver(dot)com>, Job <Job(at)colliniconsulting(dot)it>, "pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Materialized view vs. view
Date: 2017-01-10 20:34:44
Message-ID: CACjxUsNkFMjL6jyDJZXq0AZ-WxNTaWS19HqqmHwM_sCdXR-Pyg@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-general

On Tue, Jan 10, 2017 at 2:01 PM, Melvin Davidson <melvin6925(at)gmail(dot)com>
wrote:

> Can we all agree that the "Materialized View" should be faster

I think we have.

> and stop this pointless bickering about naming convention,
> which I have already stated, is just an opinion and too late to change at
this point?

Novel opinions about what words mean can lead to confusion. Left
alone, what you said might have confused some readers about what
"materialized" means. "Materialized view" has been a term of art,
part of database jargon, for over 30 years.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jargon :

"A main driving force in the creation of technical jargon is
precision and efficiency of communication when a discussion must
easily range from general themes to specific, finely differentiated
details without circumlocution."

--
Kevin Grittner
EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company

In response to

Browse pgsql-general by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Nicolas Paris 2017-01-10 21:30:08 Re: Materialized view vs. view
Previous Message David G. Johnston 2017-01-10 20:33:19 Re: Materialized view vs. view