Re: Progress Report on Materialized Views

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com
Cc: "'Jonathan M(dot) Gardner'" <jgardner(at)jonathangardner(dot)net>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Progress Report on Materialized Views
Date: 2004-02-24 01:11:16
Message-ID: 15156.1077585076@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

"Simon Riggs" <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> writes:
> You are 100% right: MVs are unambiguously not allowed as part of the
> TPC-H spec - what 1.5.7 shows is how useful MVs are: they've had to ban
> them!

Ah, now I get your point. You're quite right, the TPC-H queries taken
as a repetitive workload would be a good test case for materialized
views. I misunderstood you as suggesting that we'd want to push use
of MVs into the DBT-3 benchmark as such.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2004-02-24 03:41:26 Re: client_encoding in dump file
Previous Message Tom Lane 2004-02-24 01:02:33 Re: Too-many-files errors on OS X