Hmm I think a materialized view you have to update yourself is called a "table".. but after dealing with the nightmare that is Oracle 11g, I think it'd be much more fun going that route with triggers and everything. Yes this thread is a complete vent, and also a plea to the pg guys to do materialized views right!
On Sep 21, 2011 1:54 PM, "Ben Chobot" <bench@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Sep 21, 2011, at 1:17 PM, Mike Christensen wrote:
>
>> So I used to think materialized views in Postgres would be an awesome feature. That is until I had to endure the hell hole which is Oracle's implementation.. what a complete joke.. did MS SQL's indexed views do any better? Hopefully if PG 10 implements this, they'll make it actually useful to people.
>>
>
> Not sure if this was a question or just blowing off frustration, but you can do materialized views in PG just fine. It's just that you have to do the work of updating them yourself. You can make a good case that's a good thing, because it lets you optimize the process around your needs..... but it does add for dba complexity.
>
> (Hey, just like replication! :) )
> On Sep 21, 2011, at 1:17 PM, Mike Christensen wrote:
>
>> So I used to think materialized views in Postgres would be an awesome feature. That is until I had to endure the hell hole which is Oracle's implementation.. what a complete joke.. did MS SQL's indexed views do any better? Hopefully if PG 10 implements this, they'll make it actually useful to people.
>>
>
> Not sure if this was a question or just blowing off frustration, but you can do materialized views in PG just fine. It's just that you have to do the work of updating them yourself. You can make a good case that's a good thing, because it lets you optimize the process around your needs..... but it does add for dba complexity.
>
> (Hey, just like replication! :) )
