On Tue, Jan 10, 2017 at 2:31 PM, Kevin Grittner <kgri...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 10, 2017 at 12:44 PM, Melvin Davidson <melvin6...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > fyi, a view is nothing more than just that, a view. > > A materialized view, afaic, is a misleading name, it is actually > > a valid table and you can create indexes on them, > > I disagree with the notion that defining a relation in terms of a > query (like a view) and materializing the results (like a table) > makes "materialized view" a misleading name. I don't think I can > say it better than others already have, so I recommend reading the > first three paragraphs of the "Introduction" section of this paper: > > http://homepages.inf.ed.ac.uk/wenfei/qsx/reading/gupta95maintenance.pdf > Ashish Gupta and Inderpal Singh Mumick. > Maintenance of Materialized Views: Problems, Techniques, and Applications. > > > so theoretically you should be able to reduce response time on > > them. > > As the above-referenced text suggests, a materialized view is > essentially a cache of the results of the specified query. While, > in rare cases, this may be captured to provide the query results as > of some particular moment in time, the overwhelming reason for > creating a materialized view is to improve performance over a > non-materialized view. > > -- > Kevin Grittner > EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com > The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company > > >I disagree with the notion that defining a relation in terms of a >query (like a view) and materializing the results (like a table) >makes "materialized view" a misleading name. *IMHO, I disagree. I feel a better name would be "materialized table". * *However, it is too late to change that now. Just my personal opinion.* -- *Melvin Davidson* I reserve the right to fantasize. Whether or not you wish to share my fantasy is entirely up to you.
