Robert Haas wrote:
> 2010/4/10 Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>:
>> Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
>>> 1. Keep the materialized view up-to-date when the base tables change.
>>> This can be further divided into many steps, you can begin by supporting
>>> automatic updates only on very simple views with e.g a single table and
>>> a where clause. Then extend that to support joins, aggregates,
>>> subqueries etc. Keeping it really limited, you could even require the
>>> user to write the required triggers himself.
>> That last bit doesn't strike me as much of an advance. Isn't the whole point
>> of this to automate it? Creating greedy materialized views is usually not
>> terribly difficult now, but you do have to write the triggers.
> Yeah, I agree.
It doesn't accomplish anything interesting on its own. But if you do the
planner changes to automatically use the materialized view to satisfy
queries (item 2. in my previous email), it's useful.
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Peter Eisentraut||Date: 2010-04-11 16:48:34|
|Subject: Re: psql's \d display of unique index vs. constraint|
|Previous:||From: Greg Smith||Date: 2010-04-11 09:24:07|
|Subject: Re: GSoC - proposal - Materialized Views in PostgreSQL|