On Sun, Apr 11, 2010 at 10:26 AM, Heikki Linnakangas
> 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.
But you can't do that with a snapshot view, only a continuous updated one.
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Florian G. Pflug||Date: 2010-04-12 02:13:34|
|Subject: Re: GSoC - proposal - Materialized Views in PostgreSQL|
|Previous:||From: Peter Eisentraut||Date: 2010-04-11 16:48:34|
|Subject: Re: psql's \d display of unique index vs. constraint|