Re: Should a materialized view be based on a view?
| От | Thom Brown |
|---|---|
| Тема | Re: Should a materialized view be based on a view? |
| Дата | |
| Msg-id | CAA-aLv76M4LubCh+Pdrtosi8Q78vfqLXGSajdUkx28u2sNBx2w@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
| Ответ на | Should a materialized view be based on a view? ("Kevin Grittner" <Kevin.Grittner@wicourts.gov>) |
| Список | pgsql-hackers |
On 18 November 2011 22:26, Kevin Grittner <Kevin.Grittner@wicourts.gov> wrote: > I still have a lot of reading to do before I propose anything > concrete for development, but one thing that has already struck me > as a common theme for MVs is that a lot of people seem to like the > idea of first creating a "normal" view, and then materializing it. > That seems pretty attractive to me, too. How do people feel about > that as a fundamental design decision: that a MV would always have > a corresponding view (under a different name or in a different > schema)? Love it or hate it? Is there a need to create it as a normal view first? Can't the CREATE VIEW syntax be expanded to support MV capabilities? (CREATE [ MATERIALIZED ] VIEW...) And then ALTER VIEW can materialise a regular view, or dematerialise a materialised view. -- Thom Brown Twitter: @darkixion IRC (freenode): dark_ixion Registered Linux user: #516935 EnterpriseDB UK: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: