Thank you everyone for the kind words!
- Bret -
On Sat, May 17, 2025 at 11:44 PM Patrick McFadin wrote:
> Welcome Bret and congratulations!
>
> On Sat, May 17, 2025 at 10:46 AM Jaydeep Chovatia <
> chovatia.jayd...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Congratulations!
>>
>> Jaydeep
>>
>> On May 16, 2025
Isn’t the reality here is that repairing a single partition in the base table is potentially a full cluster-wide scan of the MV if you also want to detect rows in the MV that don’t exist in the base table (eg resurrection or a missed delete)There’s no getting around that. Keeping an extra index doe
>Isn’t the reality here is that repairing a single partition in the base
table is potentially a full cluster-wide scan of the MV if you also want to
detect rows in the MV that don’t exist in the base table (eg resurrection
or a missed delete)
Exactly. Since materialized views (MVs) are partitioned
> If you had a custom SAI index or something, this isn’t something you’d
need to worry about
This is what I missed.
I think this could be a potential solution, but comparing indexes alone
isn’t sufficient—it only handles cases where the MV has extra or missing
rows. It doesn’t catch data mismatche
