From: | "Kevin Grittner" <kgrittn(at)mail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | "Jeff Davis" <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com> |
Cc: | "Pgsql Hackers" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Materialized views WIP patch |
Date: | 2012-11-16 16:30:00 |
Message-ID: | 20121116163000.90180@gmx.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Jeff Davis wrote:
> On Wed, 2012-11-14 at 21:28 -0500, Kevin Grittner wrote:
> > Attached is a patch that is still WIP but that I think is getting
> > pretty close to completion. It is not intended to be the be-all and
> > end-all for materialized views, but the minimum useful feature set --
> > which is all that I've had time to do for this release. In
> > particular, the view is only updated on demand by a complete rebuild.
> > For the next release, I hope to build on this base to allow more
> > eager and incremental updates, and perhaps a concurrent batch update.
>
> The documentation says that a materialized view is basically a
> create-table-as-select except that it remembers the query. Would you say
> that there is a compelling use case for this alone, or is this a
> building block for more sophisticated materialized view support (e.g.
> eager updating) later?
IMV, this has some slight value as it stands, although perhaps not enough
to justify a patch this big. The idea is that with this much in place,
patches to implement more aggressive and incremental maintenance of the
MV data become possible. So I think the bar it should pass for commit is
that it seems a sane basis for that, while providing some functionality
which people will find useful.
-Kevin
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Andres Freund | 2012-11-16 16:31:12 | Re: foreign key locks |
Previous Message | Kevin Grittner | 2012-11-16 16:25:57 | Re: Materialized views WIP patch |