Re: Should a materialized view be based on a view?
От | Szymon Guz |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Should a materialized view be based on a view? |
Дата | |
Msg-id | CAFjNrYtQM6hk3J0Ls2d+_xAvTpVsxKrM6jVa=3or8o4_LX7qSg@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 23:26, 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?
-Kevin
Hi Kevin,
maybe a stupid question... but why? It looks like for creating a function I should create another function earlier. For me the design should be simple. If you want to create something below my MV, thats fine for me, if I don't need to know that (just like when creating a serial column).
regards
Szymon
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: