Re: views on views on views
From: Ram Raman <veeeraman_at_gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 26 Mar 2009 13:35:06 -0500
Message-ID: <effc058d0903261135s3b9f9a88y1318cf2ec4a2a752_at_mail.gmail.com>
I was planning to open the exact topic a week ago, but was too busy. One of our users (you read it right) wants to build views that are multi layered like Chris talks about. I tried to talk about performance, she mentioned that it is ok and that she stopped at 9th level, ie 9 layers of view on top of view. IT was initially successful in preventing that, but apparently she used her clout and is having the view built :(
Date: Thu, 26 Mar 2009 13:35:06 -0500
Message-ID: <effc058d0903261135s3b9f9a88y1318cf2ec4a2a752_at_mail.gmail.com>
I was planning to open the exact topic a week ago, but was too busy. One of our users (you read it right) wants to build views that are multi layered like Chris talks about. I tried to talk about performance, she mentioned that it is ok and that she stopped at 9th level, ie 9 layers of view on top of view. IT was initially successful in preventing that, but apparently she used her clout and is having the view built :(
It is a good time to discuss the alternatives. With my knowledge, I can think of 1) Rewrite of the SQL 2) Materialized views.
Others can correct or add to it.
On 3/26/09, Lyndon Tiu <ltiu_at_alumni.sfu.ca> wrote:
>
> On Thu, 26 Mar 2009 12:55:44 -0400 mwf_at_rsiz.com wrote:
> > That is my understanding of what you wrote. Please let me know if I got
> it
> > wrong, because I'm stumped about what else you could mean, by "That's it.
> > ..." Oh, and I definitely disagree, if that is indeed your meaning.
> >
>
> Of course not.
>
> --
> Lyndon Tiu
> --
> http://www.freelists.org/webpage/oracle-l
>
>
>
-- http://www.freelists.org/webpage/oracle-lReceived on Thu Mar 26 2009 - 13:35:06 CDT