On 3/29/17 3:39 PM, David G. Johnston wrote:
That said, I'm not sure what using materialized views instead of normal
tables buys you in the first place. I could see possibly using a
materialized view as the current month's table but the historical tables
usually don't require refreshing.
My e
On Wed, Mar 29, 2017 at 12:19 PM, Tony Cebzanov wrote:
> Are either of these things that could be supported in the future? If not,
> is there a better way to get this kind of behavior so that materialized
> views are more useful when the amount of data increases and it's not
> feasible to update
PostgreSQL's materialized view functionality is very useful, but one
problem is that when the view gets large, there is no way to refresh
part of it. I know that table partitioning is coming in Postgres 10,
but I haven't heard anything about ideas for partitioning / sharding of
materialized vi
