Materialized View or table?
I have a table (A) with 750+ million records and another one (B) which is a
summary of information in A containing 30+million records.
Now I wonder whether it wouldn't be better to have B as an indexed
materialized view. Though not often, there will be situations where B has
to be updated.
In the past I avoided materialized views when the result of a query
contains more than about 1 million records. I do not know enough about the
implications for the server's resources to make an informed decision though.
What are the pro's and con's of large materialized views vs. tables in a
case like this?
Regards
Johann
--
Because experiencing your loyal love is better than life itself,
my lips will praise you. (Psalm 63:3)
On 9/15/15 2:14 AM, Johann Spies wrote:
What are the pro's and con's of large materialized views vs. tables in a
case like this?
AFAIK a matview is essentially the same as a table under the covers, so
I don't believe there's any reason not to use one. At some point we'll
have incremental refresh of some sort, which might help in your case.
--
Jim Nasby, Data Architect, Blue Treble Consulting, Austin TX
Experts in Analytics, Data Architecture and PostgreSQL
Data in Trouble? Get it in Treble! http://BlueTreble.com
--
Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general