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
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 |