| From: | "David G(dot) Johnston" <david(dot)g(dot)johnston(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Job <Job(at)colliniconsulting(dot)it> |
| Cc: | "pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Materialized view vs. view |
| Date: | 2017-01-10 18:42:57 |
| Message-ID: | CAKFQuwbNB8CxvZsS8n=Bsb1bfeoLWgKZr=FrDeu9-fT1C7wcaQ@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general |
On Tue, Jan 10, 2017 at 11:27 AM, Job <Job(at)colliniconsulting(dot)it> wrote:
> Hi guys,
>
> i am making some tests with a massive number of "select" queries (only
> for reading datas) on a view and a materialized view.
> We use Postgresql 9.6.1 on a 64bit server.
>
> Only for "select" queries, which one is faster and less expensive as
> resources cost?
> The view or the materialized view?
>
> The view has about 500K lines.
>
>
There is no simple answer to this - it all depends upon your actual usage.
With proper indexes and a disregard for the "REFRESH MATERIALIZED VIEW ..."
command cost the materialized view should always perform better. But most
people don't get to disregard the refresh dynamic imposed by materialized
views.
David J.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Melvin Davidson | 2017-01-10 18:44:12 | Re: Materialized view vs. view |
| Previous Message | Melvin Davidson | 2017-01-10 18:39:30 | Re: i got a process holding the lock |