| From: | "David G(dot) Johnston" <david(dot)g(dot)johnston(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Melvin Davidson <melvin6925(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Kevin Grittner <kgrittn(at)gmail(dot)com>, 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 19:52:53 |
| Message-ID: | CAKFQuwYJvaJu2c1eDx8Bfn_Zw6qdXrLpJmOxhWsFtynRx93pmw@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general |
On Tue, Jan 10, 2017 at 12:36 PM, Melvin Davidson <melvin6925(at)gmail(dot)com>
wrote:
>
>>
> >I disagree with the notion that defining a relation in terms of a
> >query (like a view) and materializing the results (like a table)
> >makes "materialized view" a misleading name.
>
>
> *IMHO, I disagree. I feel a better name would be "materialized table". *
> *However, it is too late to change that now. Just my personal opinion.*
>
Sounds redundant - and implies that a TABLE without the materialized
prefix isn't, which is not true.
The only other name I came up with was worse...CREATE VIEWTABLE AS
David J.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Kevin Grittner | 2017-01-10 19:53:43 | Re: Materialized view vs. view |
| Previous Message | Melvin Davidson | 2017-01-10 19:36:32 | Re: Materialized view vs. view |