Re: Postgresql Materialized views - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Tom Lane
Subject Re: Postgresql Materialized views
Date
Msg-id 14479.1200326062@sss.pgh.pa.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Postgresql Materialized views  ("Zeugswetter Andreas ADI SD" <Andreas.Zeugswetter@s-itsolutions.at>)
Responses Re: Postgresql Materialized views
List pgsql-hackers
"Zeugswetter Andreas ADI SD" <Andreas.Zeugswetter@s-itsolutions.at> writes:
> Traditionally materialized views exist, so that you do not need to code differently.
> Your queries still run on the detail table, but are silently answered
> by a suitable MV. The MV might have count + other aggregated columns
> grouped by some columns, and thus be able e.g. shortcircuit a 
> "select count(*) from atab". The MV should be MVCC aware (have different
> values for different snapshots) and not substantially reduce possible 
> concurrency of updates to the base table.

Note that you just raised the minimum bar for implementation of the
feature by a couple orders of magnitude.  We cannot automatically
substitute an MV into queries unless this is guaranteed not to change
the results.  No lazy updates, MVCC transparency required, etc.
        regards, tom lane


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: Index trouble with 8.3b4
Next
From: Alvaro Herrera
Date:
Subject: Re: could not open relation: Invalid argument