| From: | Johann Spies <johann(dot)spies(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | "pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Materialized View or table? |
| Date: | 2015-09-15 07:14:02 |
| Message-ID: | CAGZ55DQ6v3k6z--z-nSRmxUzegckwGZ-PFO-q8awiLGsFJb5nw@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general |
I have a table (A) with 750+ million records and another one (B) which is a
summary of information in A containing 30+million records.
Now I wonder whether it wouldn't be better to have B as an indexed
materialized view. Though not often, there will be situations where B has
to be updated.
In the past I avoided materialized views when the result of a query
contains more than about 1 million records. I do not know enough about the
implications for the server's resources to make an informed decision though.
What are the pro's and con's of large materialized views vs. tables in a
case like this?
Regards
Johann
--
Because experiencing your loyal love is better than life itself,
my lips will praise you. (Psalm 63:3)
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Jim Nasby | 2015-09-15 07:22:58 | Re: clone_schema function |
| Previous Message | Jim Nasby | 2015-09-15 07:04:05 | Re: avoid lock conflict between SELECT and TRUNCATE |