"Simon Riggs" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> You are 100% right: MVs are unambiguously not allowed as part of the
> TPC-H spec - what 1.5.7 shows is how useful MVs are: they've had to ban
> them!
Ah, now I get your point. You're quite right, the TPC-H queries taken
as a repetitive workload would b
>Tom Lane
> "Simon Riggs" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Could I suggest that your next step is to sync up with the work
being
> > done on tuning the DBT-3 query workload? As I'm sure you're aware,
that
> > is very similar to TPC-H workload, where most of the commercial
RDBMS
> > vendors utilise M
"Simon Riggs" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Could I suggest that your next step is to sync up with the work being
> done on tuning the DBT-3 query workload? As I'm sure you're aware, that
> is very similar to TPC-H workload, where most of the commercial RDBMS
> vendors utilise Materialized Views to
>Jonathan M. Gardner
> I've implemented a pretty simple Materialized Views scheme. It's not
> terribly complicated, and it works quite well.
Exciting news - excellent work. Starting simple was the right approach!
> There were some issues with the time-sensitivity of the queries. For
> instance, o
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
I've implemented a pretty simple Materialized Views scheme. It's not
terribly complicated, and it works quite well.
This is what I do.
0) Initialize the materialized view environment. This will allow the
system to track which tables and views are p
