Re: GSoC - proposal - Materialized Views in PostgreSQL

From: Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>
To: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>, pavelbaros <baros(dot)p(at)seznam(dot)cz>, Greg Smith <greg(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: GSoC - proposal - Materialized Views in PostgreSQL
Date: 2010-04-11 14:26:03
Message-ID: 4BC1DBFB.8050700@enterprisedb.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

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.

--
Heikki Linnakangas
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Peter Eisentraut 2010-04-11 16:48:34 Re: psql's \d display of unique index vs. constraint
Previous Message Greg Smith 2010-04-11 09:24:07 Re: GSoC - proposal - Materialized Views in PostgreSQL