Re: R: [GENERAL] Partitioned "views" - Mailing list pgsql-general

From Stephen Frost
Subject Re: R: [GENERAL] Partitioned "views"
Date
Msg-id 20170122213751.GL18360@tamriel.snowman.net
Whole thread Raw
In response to R: [GENERAL] Partitioned "views"  (Job <Job@colliniconsulting.it>)
List pgsql-general
Greetings,

* Job (Job@colliniconsulting.it) wrote:
> >>The mat view takes longer and longer to update because it runs the full query.  What you really want to do is have
aside-table that you update regularly with appropriate SQL to issue UPDATE statements for just the current day (or
whatever).
>
> If correct, i leave only last datas into "side-table" and syncronize only these datas in the materialized view.
> If i delete datas from the side-table (ex- truncate) during the next materialized view update they will be lost or
remainintact? 

I was suggesting that you, essentially, write your own SQL to have a
materialized view, *not* use the PG materialized view system.

In other words, the 'side-table' that you create would be *your*
materialized view, but to PG, it'd just look like a regular table.

You can't modify a PG materialized view.

Thanks!

Stephen

Attachment

pgsql-general by date:

Previous
From: Job
Date:
Subject: R: [GENERAL] Partitioned "views"
Next
From: Alexander Shchapov
Date:
Subject: [GENERAL] Detailed progress reporting for "vacuuming indexes" stage