Re: Materialized view vs. view

On Tue, Jan 10, 2017 at 2:31 PM, Kevin Grittner <kgrittn(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:

> On Tue, Jan 10, 2017 at 12:44 PM, Melvin Davidson <melvin6925(at)gmail(dot)com>
> wrote:
>
> > fyi, a view is nothing more than just that, a view.
> > A materialized view, afaic, is a misleading name, it is actually
> > a valid table and you can create indexes on them,
>
> 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. I don't think I can
> say it better than others already have, so I recommend reading the
> first three paragraphs of the "Introduction" section of this paper:
>
> http://homepages.inf.ed.ac.uk/wenfei/qsx/reading/gupta95maintenance.pdf
> Ashish Gupta and Inderpal Singh Mumick.
> Maintenance of Materialized Views: Problems, Techniques, and Applications.
>
> > so theoretically you should be able to reduce response time on
> > them.
>
> As the above-referenced text suggests, a materialized view is
> essentially a cache of the results of the specified query. While,
> in rare cases, this may be captured to provide the query results as
> of some particular moment in time, the overwhelming reason for
> creating a materialized view is to improve performance over a
> non-materialized view.
>
> --
> Kevin Grittner
> EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
> The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
>
>
>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.*
--
*Melvin Davidson*
I reserve the right to fantasize. Whether or not you
wish to share my fantasy is entirely up to you.