From: Peter Eisentraut <peter.eisentraut@enterprisedb.com>
To: Maciek Sakrejda <m.sakrejda@gmail.com>
To: pgsql-docs@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: ORDER BY in materialized view example?
Date: Tue, 23 Nov 2021 17:06:32 +0100
Message-ID: <1e9f99f9-9cdb-4bc3-85d9-c017fbc54566@enterprisedb.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAOtHd0D-OvrUU0C=4hX28p4BaSE1XL78BAQ0VcDaLLt8tdUzsg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAOtHd0D-OvrUU0C=4hX28p4BaSE1XL78BAQ0VcDaLLt8tdUzsg@mail.gmail.com>
On 23.11.21 07:18, Maciek Sakrejda wrote:
> An example in the materialized view documentation [1] includes an ORDER
> BY clause without a clear reason. Does it help build the index more
> efficiently? I suppose it's also sort of like a CLUSTER?
>
> But it seems like the ORDER BY should either be explained or dropped: as
> is, this gives the impression that the ORDER BY can be "embedded" into
> the resulting relation and persist to other queries that do not include
> an explicit ORDER BY. (I recently ran across this belief, though not
> sure if this was due to this example.)
>
> Thoughts?
>
> [1]:
> https://www.postgresql.org/docs/current/rules-materializedviews.html
> <https://www.postgresql.org/docs/current/rules-materializedviews.html;
I agree the ORDER BY is not relevant to the example. There might be
some implementation-dependent advantage to ordering a materialized view,
but if there is, it isn't explained in the example.
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Reply to all the recipients using the --to and --cc options:
reply via email
To: pgsql-docs@postgresql.org
Cc: peter.eisentraut@enterprisedb.com, m.sakrejda@gmail.com
Subject: Re: ORDER BY in materialized view example?
In-Reply-To: <1e9f99f9-9cdb-4bc3-85d9-c017fbc54566@enterprisedb.com>
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
This inbox is served by DDX for PostgreSQL; see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox