Le 10/33/2017 à 21:33, David G. Johnston écrivait :
>On Tue, Jan 10, 2017 at 1:01 PM, Melvin Davidson
><[1]melvin6...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>Can we all agree that the "Materialized View" should be faster
>
>
Yes.
The OP told about a 500K rows view. Every select queries on that view
On Tue, Jan 10, 2017 at 2:01 PM, Melvin Davidson
wrote:
> Can we all agree that the "Materialized View" should be faster
I think we have.
> and stop this pointless bickering about naming convention,
> which I have already stated, is just an opinion and too late to change at
this point?
Novel o
On Tue, Jan 10, 2017 at 1:01 PM, Melvin Davidson
wrote:
>
> Can we all agree that the "Materialized View" should be faster
>
>
>
If you add in the condition that the same answer has to be returned whether
you query the view or the mat-view then no, I wouldn't agree; and the
original question is
>
>
> "A rose by any other name would still smell as sweet”.
Actually there’s no “still” in that line, if you’re quoting Shakespeare. And
the full “That which we call a rose …” is truly appropriate here.
--
Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org)
To make changes
On Tue, Jan 10, 2017 at 2:53 PM, Kevin Grittner wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 10, 2017 at 1:36 PM, Melvin Davidson
> wrote:
>
> > IMHO, I disagree. I feel a better name would be "materialized
> > table".
>
> The dictionary defines "materialize" as meaning "become actual
> fact" or "appear in bodily form"
On Tue, Jan 10, 2017 at 1:36 PM, Melvin Davidson
wrote:
> IMHO, I disagree. I feel a better name would be "materialized
> table".
The dictionary defines "materialize" as meaning "become actual
fact" or "appear in bodily form". In the database environment, it
generally means that the data is act
On Tue, Jan 10, 2017 at 12:36 PM, Melvin Davidson
wrote:
>
>>
> >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 woul
On Tue, Jan 10, 2017 at 2:31 PM, Kevin Grittner wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 10, 2017 at 12:44 PM, Melvin Davidson
> 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,
On Tue, Jan 10, 2017 at 12:44 PM, Melvin Davidson
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
On Tue, Jan 10, 2017 at 1:36 PM, Adrian Klaver
wrote:
> On 01/10/2017 10:27 AM, Job wrote:
>
>> Hi guys,
>>
>> iam making some tests with a massive number of "select" queries (only
>> for reading datas) on a view and a materialized view.
>> We use Postgresql 9.6.1 on a 64bit server.
>>
>> Only fo
On Tue, Jan 10, 2017 at 11:27 AM, Job wrote:
> Hi guys,
>
> i am making some tests with a massive number of "select" queries (only
> for reading datas) on a view and a materialized view.
> We use Postgresql 9.6.1 on a 64bit server.
>
> Only for "select" queries, which one is faster and less expen
On 01/10/2017 10:27 AM, Job wrote:
Hi guys,
iam making some tests with a massive number of "select" queries (only
for reading datas) on a view and a materialized view.
We use Postgresql 9.6.1 on a 64bit server.
Only for "select" queries, which one is faster and less expensive as
resources cost?
Hi guys,
i am making some tests with a massive number of "select" queries (only for
reading datas) on a view and a materialized view.
We use Postgresql 9.6.1 on a 64bit server.
Only for "select" queries, which one is faster and less expensive as resources
cost?
The view or the materialized view
13 matches
Mail list logo
