Talk:Materialized view

This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Computing

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ComputingWikipedia:WikiProject ComputingTemplate:WikiProject ComputingComputing articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
	This article has been automatically rated by a bot or other tool as Stub-class because it uses a stub template. Please ensure the assessment is correct before removing the `\|auto=` parameter.

Write-Through[edit]

It is not clear from the description under which circumstances the data written into a view or materialized view is passed on and written into the original table, or if that is possible at all for a materialized view.

Vendor-Specific Info[edit]

This article (as of Oct 2nd, 2008) confuses vendor-specific stuff, like whether "Advanced Replication" is installed, with the database design concept. To partially answer the question above, the specifics of if and when base tables are updated when updating a materialized view is implementation-specific. Maybe they're effective immediately. Maybe the updates only update the materialized view and don't ever make it back to the base tables. Maybe your DBMS doesn't even support materialized views. It depends on which database you're running. Let's remove that stuff from the article. Maybe we can move it into a separate section with a grid comparing the functionality of some popular DBMS's. 167.136.142.30 (talk) 19:22, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the Oracle-specific stuff and added a bit of text on materialized views in different databases. Perhaps someone else can expand on that. -- Levin (talk) 07:42, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Full disclosure: I work at ScyllaDB; we also support Materialized Views. I didn't want to go and put it in directly to the document due to WP:COI, but there might be a round-up of a broader list of vendors and open source projects and their current status of support. For instance, Cassandra has MVs, but they are still considered problematic. --Petercorless (talk) 15:53, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

SQL Server[edit]

Microsoft SQL Server has a similar feature called "indexed views"

should imho be changed to "Microsoft SQL Server has no feature that is comparable." (works completely different and is by far more complicated and less flexible) 212.90.151.90 (talk) 16:17, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

T — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.177.10.94 (talk) 08:31, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Drawbacks of Materialized Views[edit]

It would be interesting which drawbacks arise from using materialised views (Update Overhead, time drift of base table and materialzed view)

213.61.213.230 (talk) 14:12, 12 January 2016 (UTC) Velten Heyn[reply]

Better explanation required[edit]

From my point of view this part require a better explanation and some sources:

In contrast, in a normal view, it's typically only possible to exploit indexes on columns that come directly from (or have a mapping to) indexed columns in the base tables; often this functionality is not offered at all.