Should a materialized view be based on a view?

On 18 November 2011 23:26, Kevin Grittner <Kevin.Grittner@wicourts.gov>wrote:

I still have a lot of reading to do before I propose anything
concrete for development, but one thing that has already struck me
as a common theme for MVs is that a lot of people seem to like the
idea of first creating a "normal" view, and then materializing it.
That seems pretty attractive to me, too. How do people feel about
that as a fundamental design decision: that a MV would always have
a corresponding view (under a different name or in a different
schema)? Love it or hate it?

-Kevin

Hi Kevin,
maybe a stupid question... but why? It looks like for creating a function I
should create another function earlier. For me the design should be simple.
If you want to create something below my MV, thats fine for me, if I don't
need to know that (just like when creating a serial column).

regards
Szymon

On 18 November 2011 22:26, Kevin Grittner <Kevin.Grittner@wicourts.gov> wrote:

I still have a lot of reading to do before I propose anything
concrete for development, but one thing that has already struck me
as a common theme for MVs is that a lot of people seem to like the
idea of first creating a "normal" view, and then materializing it.
That seems pretty attractive to me, too.  How do people feel about
that as a fundamental design decision: that a MV would always have
a corresponding view (under a different name or in a different
schema)?  Love it or hate it?

Is there a need to create it as a normal view first? Can't the CREATE
VIEW syntax be expanded to support MV capabilities? (CREATE [
MATERIALIZED ] VIEW...) And then ALTER VIEW can materialise a regular
view, or dematerialise a materialised view.

--
Thom Brown
Twitter: @darkixion
IRC (freenode): dark_ixion
Registered Linux user: #516935

EnterpriseDB UK: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company