I'm a little new to SQL Server but I recall using Materialized Views in
Oracle. Does SQL Server have anything like it?
Thanks,
G
SQL Server 2000 introduced Indexed Views, which are basically the same
thing.
You can read about them in Books Online, and then come back and ask for any
clarification or elaboration you need.
HTH
Kalen Delaney
SQL Server MVP
www.SolidQualityLearning.com
"G. Dean Blake" <Dean@.nospam.com> wrote in message
news:etioX$ebEHA.1764@.TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
> I'm a little new to SQL Server but I recall using Materialized Views in
> Oracle. Does SQL Server have anything like it?
> Thanks,
> G
>
Showing posts with label materialized. Show all posts
Showing posts with label materialized. Show all posts
Wednesday, March 7, 2012
Materialized Views?
I'm a little new to SQL Server but I recall using Materialized Views in
Oracle. Does SQL Server have anything like it?
Thanks,
GSQL Server 2000 introduced Indexed Views, which are basically the same
thing.
You can read about them in Books Online, and then come back and ask for any
clarification or elaboration you need.
HTH
--
Kalen Delaney
SQL Server MVP
www.SolidQualityLearning.com
"G. Dean Blake" <Dean@.nospam.com> wrote in message
news:etioX$ebEHA.1764@.TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
> I'm a little new to SQL Server but I recall using Materialized Views in
> Oracle. Does SQL Server have anything like it?
> Thanks,
> G
>
Oracle. Does SQL Server have anything like it?
Thanks,
GSQL Server 2000 introduced Indexed Views, which are basically the same
thing.
You can read about them in Books Online, and then come back and ask for any
clarification or elaboration you need.
HTH
--
Kalen Delaney
SQL Server MVP
www.SolidQualityLearning.com
"G. Dean Blake" <Dean@.nospam.com> wrote in message
news:etioX$ebEHA.1764@.TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
> I'm a little new to SQL Server but I recall using Materialized Views in
> Oracle. Does SQL Server have anything like it?
> Thanks,
> G
>
Materialized Views?
I'm a little new to SQL Server but I recall using Materialized Views in
Oracle. Does SQL Server have anything like it?
Thanks,
GSQL Server 2000 introduced Indexed Views, which are basically the same
thing.
You can read about them in Books Online, and then come back and ask for any
clarification or elaboration you need.
--
HTH
--
Kalen Delaney
SQL Server MVP
www.SolidQualityLearning.com
"G. Dean Blake" <Dean@.nospam.com> wrote in message
news:etioX$ebEHA.1764@.TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
> I'm a little new to SQL Server but I recall using Materialized Views in
> Oracle. Does SQL Server have anything like it?
> Thanks,
> G
>
Oracle. Does SQL Server have anything like it?
Thanks,
GSQL Server 2000 introduced Indexed Views, which are basically the same
thing.
You can read about them in Books Online, and then come back and ask for any
clarification or elaboration you need.
--
HTH
--
Kalen Delaney
SQL Server MVP
www.SolidQualityLearning.com
"G. Dean Blake" <Dean@.nospam.com> wrote in message
news:etioX$ebEHA.1764@.TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
> I'm a little new to SQL Server but I recall using Materialized Views in
> Oracle. Does SQL Server have anything like it?
> Thanks,
> G
>
Materialized views
Hi,
Can one table have two materialized views?
1. Count(*)
2. Freq of one column (select column_name, count(*) from table_name
group by column_name;)
And approximately how many rows table can have materialized views?
Thanks.Yes, you can have more than one materialized view on a table. You can even have the different materialized views have the same query, just using different names, and it will work as well.
As to the number of rows possible using materialized view, I don't think there is a limit just because it is a materialized view. The only limits posed (I believe, correct me if I'm wrong) are that of space... run out of space to store the table, run out of rows you can add. Remember, a materialized view has similar properties to a regular table.
Hope this helps.
JoeB|||Thanks for the reply.
Can one table have two materialized views?
1. Count(*)
2. Freq of one column (select column_name, count(*) from table_name
group by column_name;)
And approximately how many rows table can have materialized views?
Thanks.Yes, you can have more than one materialized view on a table. You can even have the different materialized views have the same query, just using different names, and it will work as well.
As to the number of rows possible using materialized view, I don't think there is a limit just because it is a materialized view. The only limits posed (I believe, correct me if I'm wrong) are that of space... run out of space to store the table, run out of rows you can add. Remember, a materialized view has similar properties to a regular table.
Hope this helps.
JoeB|||Thanks for the reply.
Materialized views
Hello,
Do you know how can i create a materialized view in sqlserver like oracle.
Because i want to store in a table the result of a query.You can create a view of the query you have and then create a clustered index on that view. This will make SQL Server store the data physically.|||This smells more like a simple SELECT INTO (http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/default.asp?url=/library/en-us/acdata/ac_8_md_03_8nad.asp) to me.
-PatP
Do you know how can i create a materialized view in sqlserver like oracle.
Because i want to store in a table the result of a query.You can create a view of the query you have and then create a clustered index on that view. This will make SQL Server store the data physically.|||This smells more like a simple SELECT INTO (http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/default.asp?url=/library/en-us/acdata/ac_8_md_03_8nad.asp) to me.
-PatP
Materialized Views
I'm having a problem creating a materialized view. Here's the view
definition:
Create View audit_Report
WITH SCHEMABINDING
AS
select a.audit_id, a.status_id, a.audit_date, a.reference_name...
from dbo.audits a
join dbo.references r
on a.reference_id=r.reference_id
The view is created successfully.
I then tried to create a clustered index:
Create clustered index ar_idx on audit_report(audit_id)
and got this result:
When the audit table was created the following Set options were set to off:
ANSI_NULLS
Is there anyway of getting around this? The table has info in it, so I
don't want to drop it and re-create it.MAS wrote:
> I'm having a problem creating a materialized view. Here's the view
> definition:
> Create View audit_Report
> WITH SCHEMABINDING
> AS
> select a.audit_id, a.status_id, a.audit_date, a.reference_name...
> from dbo.audits a
> join dbo.references r
> on a.reference_id=r.reference_id
> The view is created successfully.
> I then tried to create a clustered index:
> Create clustered index ar_idx on audit_report(audit_id)
> and got this result:
> When the audit table was created the following Set options were set to off
:
> ANSI_NULLS
> Is there anyway of getting around this? The table has info in it, so I
> don't want to drop it and re-create it.
AFAIK the only solution is to SET ANSI_NULLS ON and then re-create the
table. Always leave ANSI_NULLS set to ON.
David Portas, SQL Server MVP
Whenever possible please post enough code to reproduce your problem.
Including CREATE TABLE and INSERT statements usually helps.
State what version of SQL Server you are using and specify the content
of any error messages.
SQL Server Books Online:
http://msdn2.microsoft.com/library/ms130214(en-US,SQL.90).aspx
--
definition:
Create View audit_Report
WITH SCHEMABINDING
AS
select a.audit_id, a.status_id, a.audit_date, a.reference_name...
from dbo.audits a
join dbo.references r
on a.reference_id=r.reference_id
The view is created successfully.
I then tried to create a clustered index:
Create clustered index ar_idx on audit_report(audit_id)
and got this result:
When the audit table was created the following Set options were set to off:
ANSI_NULLS
Is there anyway of getting around this? The table has info in it, so I
don't want to drop it and re-create it.MAS wrote:
> I'm having a problem creating a materialized view. Here's the view
> definition:
> Create View audit_Report
> WITH SCHEMABINDING
> AS
> select a.audit_id, a.status_id, a.audit_date, a.reference_name...
> from dbo.audits a
> join dbo.references r
> on a.reference_id=r.reference_id
> The view is created successfully.
> I then tried to create a clustered index:
> Create clustered index ar_idx on audit_report(audit_id)
> and got this result:
> When the audit table was created the following Set options were set to off
:
> ANSI_NULLS
> Is there anyway of getting around this? The table has info in it, so I
> don't want to drop it and re-create it.
AFAIK the only solution is to SET ANSI_NULLS ON and then re-create the
table. Always leave ANSI_NULLS set to ON.
David Portas, SQL Server MVP
Whenever possible please post enough code to reproduce your problem.
Including CREATE TABLE and INSERT statements usually helps.
State what version of SQL Server you are using and specify the content
of any error messages.
SQL Server Books Online:
http://msdn2.microsoft.com/library/ms130214(en-US,SQL.90).aspx
--
materialized view vs. denormalized table
sql2k sp3
Whats the difference between these two? Isn't a
materialized view nothing more than a denormalized table?
Dont you need to update/ repopulate them both if data in
the underlying table changes?
TIA, ChrisR
ChrisR,
A materialized view (i.e. Indexed View) is a denormalized table that the
system keeps up-to-date for you. So, no you would not have to repopulate
it.
Having said that, there are several rules that you have to follow to get an
Indexed View created, so you should carefully read the restrictions in the
Books Online.
Russell Fields
"ChrisR" <anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:799d01c49512$2e6bc060$a301280a@.phx.gbl...
> sql2k sp3
> Whats the difference between these two? Isn't a
> materialized view nothing more than a denormalized table?
> Dont you need to update/ repopulate them both if data in
> the underlying table changes?
>
> TIA, ChrisR
|||A denormalized table is simply a table that doesn't follow the 3nf
standards. This happens a lot to improve efficiency of the queries at the
cost of storage space.
So a denormalized table may have duplicate columns, data or other items in
it that violate the normal forms.
A materialized view however is simply a view that has been created on a
table(s) that has then had a clustered index created for that view. SQL
Server stores the clustered index on the view. This can make queries much
faster. This is especially true in instances where there is a large amount
of calculations or aggregations going on in the query itself.
You do not have to repopulate the clustered index as data is modified in the
base tables. This happens automagically. =)
There is more to learn about this topic. Check out materialized views in
the Books Online.
HTH
Rick Sawtell
MCT, MCSD, MCDBA
"ChrisR" <anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:799d01c49512$2e6bc060$a301280a@.phx.gbl...
> sql2k sp3
> Whats the difference between these two? Isn't a
> materialized view nothing more than a denormalized table?
> Dont you need to update/ repopulate them both if data in
> the underlying table changes?
>
> TIA, ChrisR
|||The cost of SQL Serve maintaining an indexed view is fairly steep, compared
to you doing the work yourself. However if you denormalize you may have to
change apps as well, which would not be required for an indexed view... Also
the optimizer will automatically choose the indexed view ONLY if you are
running the Enterprise edition. In the standard edition you may create an
indexed view, but it will only be used when someone references the view
name...
Wayne Snyder, MCDBA, SQL Server MVP
Mariner, Charlotte, NC
www.mariner-usa.com
(Please respond only to the newsgroups.)
I support the Professional Association of SQL Server (PASS) and it's
community of SQL Server professionals.
www.sqlpass.org
"ChrisR" <anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:799d01c49512$2e6bc060$a301280a@.phx.gbl...
> sql2k sp3
> Whats the difference between these two? Isn't a
> materialized view nothing more than a denormalized table?
> Dont you need to update/ repopulate them both if data in
> the underlying table changes?
>
> TIA, ChrisR
Whats the difference between these two? Isn't a
materialized view nothing more than a denormalized table?
Dont you need to update/ repopulate them both if data in
the underlying table changes?
TIA, ChrisR
ChrisR,
A materialized view (i.e. Indexed View) is a denormalized table that the
system keeps up-to-date for you. So, no you would not have to repopulate
it.
Having said that, there are several rules that you have to follow to get an
Indexed View created, so you should carefully read the restrictions in the
Books Online.
Russell Fields
"ChrisR" <anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:799d01c49512$2e6bc060$a301280a@.phx.gbl...
> sql2k sp3
> Whats the difference between these two? Isn't a
> materialized view nothing more than a denormalized table?
> Dont you need to update/ repopulate them both if data in
> the underlying table changes?
>
> TIA, ChrisR
|||A denormalized table is simply a table that doesn't follow the 3nf
standards. This happens a lot to improve efficiency of the queries at the
cost of storage space.
So a denormalized table may have duplicate columns, data or other items in
it that violate the normal forms.
A materialized view however is simply a view that has been created on a
table(s) that has then had a clustered index created for that view. SQL
Server stores the clustered index on the view. This can make queries much
faster. This is especially true in instances where there is a large amount
of calculations or aggregations going on in the query itself.
You do not have to repopulate the clustered index as data is modified in the
base tables. This happens automagically. =)
There is more to learn about this topic. Check out materialized views in
the Books Online.
HTH
Rick Sawtell
MCT, MCSD, MCDBA
"ChrisR" <anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:799d01c49512$2e6bc060$a301280a@.phx.gbl...
> sql2k sp3
> Whats the difference between these two? Isn't a
> materialized view nothing more than a denormalized table?
> Dont you need to update/ repopulate them both if data in
> the underlying table changes?
>
> TIA, ChrisR
|||The cost of SQL Serve maintaining an indexed view is fairly steep, compared
to you doing the work yourself. However if you denormalize you may have to
change apps as well, which would not be required for an indexed view... Also
the optimizer will automatically choose the indexed view ONLY if you are
running the Enterprise edition. In the standard edition you may create an
indexed view, but it will only be used when someone references the view
name...
Wayne Snyder, MCDBA, SQL Server MVP
Mariner, Charlotte, NC
www.mariner-usa.com
(Please respond only to the newsgroups.)
I support the Professional Association of SQL Server (PASS) and it's
community of SQL Server professionals.
www.sqlpass.org
"ChrisR" <anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:799d01c49512$2e6bc060$a301280a@.phx.gbl...
> sql2k sp3
> Whats the difference between these two? Isn't a
> materialized view nothing more than a denormalized table?
> Dont you need to update/ repopulate them both if data in
> the underlying table changes?
>
> TIA, ChrisR
materialized view vs. denormalized table
sql2k sp3
Whats the difference between these two? Isn't a
materialized view nothing more than a denormalized table?
Dont you need to update/ repopulate them both if data in
the underlying table changes?
TIA, ChrisRChrisR,
A materialized view (i.e. Indexed View) is a denormalized table that the
system keeps up-to-date for you. So, no you would not have to repopulate
it.
Having said that, there are several rules that you have to follow to get an
Indexed View created, so you should carefully read the restrictions in the
Books Online.
Russell Fields
"ChrisR" <anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:799d01c49512$2e6bc060$a301280a@.phx.gbl...
> sql2k sp3
> Whats the difference between these two? Isn't a
> materialized view nothing more than a denormalized table?
> Dont you need to update/ repopulate them both if data in
> the underlying table changes?
>
> TIA, ChrisR|||A denormalized table is simply a table that doesn't follow the 3nf
standards. This happens a lot to improve efficiency of the queries at the
cost of storage space.
So a denormalized table may have duplicate columns, data or other items in
it that violate the normal forms.
A materialized view however is simply a view that has been created on a
table(s) that has then had a clustered index created for that view. SQL
Server stores the clustered index on the view. This can make queries much
faster. This is especially true in instances where there is a large amount
of calculations or aggregations going on in the query itself.
You do not have to repopulate the clustered index as data is modified in the
base tables. This happens automagically. =)
There is more to learn about this topic. Check out materialized views in
the Books Online.
HTH
Rick Sawtell
MCT, MCSD, MCDBA
"ChrisR" <anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:799d01c49512$2e6bc060$a301280a@.phx.gbl...
> sql2k sp3
> Whats the difference between these two? Isn't a
> materialized view nothing more than a denormalized table?
> Dont you need to update/ repopulate them both if data in
> the underlying table changes?
>
> TIA, ChrisR|||The cost of SQL Serve maintaining an indexed view is fairly steep, compared
to you doing the work yourself. However if you denormalize you may have to
change apps as well, which would not be required for an indexed view... Also
the optimizer will automatically choose the indexed view ONLY if you are
running the Enterprise edition. In the standard edition you may create an
indexed view, but it will only be used when someone references the view
name...
--
Wayne Snyder, MCDBA, SQL Server MVP
Mariner, Charlotte, NC
www.mariner-usa.com
(Please respond only to the newsgroups.)
I support the Professional Association of SQL Server (PASS) and it's
community of SQL Server professionals.
www.sqlpass.org
"ChrisR" <anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:799d01c49512$2e6bc060$a301280a@.phx.gbl...
> sql2k sp3
> Whats the difference between these two? Isn't a
> materialized view nothing more than a denormalized table?
> Dont you need to update/ repopulate them both if data in
> the underlying table changes?
>
> TIA, ChrisR
Whats the difference between these two? Isn't a
materialized view nothing more than a denormalized table?
Dont you need to update/ repopulate them both if data in
the underlying table changes?
TIA, ChrisRChrisR,
A materialized view (i.e. Indexed View) is a denormalized table that the
system keeps up-to-date for you. So, no you would not have to repopulate
it.
Having said that, there are several rules that you have to follow to get an
Indexed View created, so you should carefully read the restrictions in the
Books Online.
Russell Fields
"ChrisR" <anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:799d01c49512$2e6bc060$a301280a@.phx.gbl...
> sql2k sp3
> Whats the difference between these two? Isn't a
> materialized view nothing more than a denormalized table?
> Dont you need to update/ repopulate them both if data in
> the underlying table changes?
>
> TIA, ChrisR|||A denormalized table is simply a table that doesn't follow the 3nf
standards. This happens a lot to improve efficiency of the queries at the
cost of storage space.
So a denormalized table may have duplicate columns, data or other items in
it that violate the normal forms.
A materialized view however is simply a view that has been created on a
table(s) that has then had a clustered index created for that view. SQL
Server stores the clustered index on the view. This can make queries much
faster. This is especially true in instances where there is a large amount
of calculations or aggregations going on in the query itself.
You do not have to repopulate the clustered index as data is modified in the
base tables. This happens automagically. =)
There is more to learn about this topic. Check out materialized views in
the Books Online.
HTH
Rick Sawtell
MCT, MCSD, MCDBA
"ChrisR" <anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:799d01c49512$2e6bc060$a301280a@.phx.gbl...
> sql2k sp3
> Whats the difference between these two? Isn't a
> materialized view nothing more than a denormalized table?
> Dont you need to update/ repopulate them both if data in
> the underlying table changes?
>
> TIA, ChrisR|||The cost of SQL Serve maintaining an indexed view is fairly steep, compared
to you doing the work yourself. However if you denormalize you may have to
change apps as well, which would not be required for an indexed view... Also
the optimizer will automatically choose the indexed view ONLY if you are
running the Enterprise edition. In the standard edition you may create an
indexed view, but it will only be used when someone references the view
name...
--
Wayne Snyder, MCDBA, SQL Server MVP
Mariner, Charlotte, NC
www.mariner-usa.com
(Please respond only to the newsgroups.)
I support the Professional Association of SQL Server (PASS) and it's
community of SQL Server professionals.
www.sqlpass.org
"ChrisR" <anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:799d01c49512$2e6bc060$a301280a@.phx.gbl...
> sql2k sp3
> Whats the difference between these two? Isn't a
> materialized view nothing more than a denormalized table?
> Dont you need to update/ repopulate them both if data in
> the underlying table changes?
>
> TIA, ChrisR
Materialized view or table function in SQL 2005
Hi,
Please advise whether SQL 2005 has the smiliar function as belows:
Materialized View in Oracle
Materialized Query Tables in DB2
Thank you.
Best Regards,
Lynn
Im not sure since I dont work with either Oracle or DB2 but I believe
indexed view would be something like that.
MC
"Lynn" <Lynn@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:0E95254A-1C42-49D7-BE78-4F64C93CD18A@.microsoft.com...
> Hi,
> Please advise whether SQL 2005 has the smiliar function as belows:
> Materialized View in Oracle
> Materialized Query Tables in DB2
> Thank you.
> --
> Best Regards,
> Lynn
|||The purpose of this function is that the view or table is not repopulated the
data when it's queried. Usually, the data is already stored in that kind of
table when the original table is updated. When this kind of view/table is
queried, the data already exists without parsing the query to original table
and repopulated the table again. Indexed view in SQL 2005 don't have this
function.
Anyway, thanks.
Best Regards,
Lynn
"MC" wrote:
> Im not sure since I dont work with either Oracle or DB2 but I believe
> indexed view would be something like that.
>
> MC
> "Lynn" <Lynn@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:0E95254A-1C42-49D7-BE78-4F64C93CD18A@.microsoft.com...
>
>
|||indexed views store the aggregate result of a query (group by something
queries) and when the source table change, the view content is updated too.
like a table, you can create an index on it.
for example, if you always want to sum the sales by product, the indexed
view will contains the result of this grouping with an index on the product
column. when the source table is updated the view is updated too at the same
time so the total by product contains the new total.
when a user ask for the total of sales by product (or the sales for a group
of products or all the products) SQL server will use the indexed views
instead of scanning the big source table.
so its exactly the result you looking for.
"Lynn" <Lynn@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:56067DCB-847F-4242-9B64-59463B9B79D6@.microsoft.com...[vbcol=seagreen]
> The purpose of this function is that the view or table is not repopulated
> the
> data when it's queried. Usually, the data is already stored in that kind
> of
> table when the original table is updated. When this kind of view/table is
> queried, the data already exists without parsing the query to original
> table
> and repopulated the table again. Indexed view in SQL 2005 don't have this
> function.
> Anyway, thanks.
> --
> Best Regards,
> Lynn
>
> "MC" wrote:
|||Lynn,
"On commit" materialized views in Oracle are conceptually the same as schema
bound views in SQL Server which have had a unique clustered index applied
prior to any other index. The Oracle materialized view grew out of the
snapshot functionality and has abilities like stale tolerance that do not
appear to be part of SQL Server Indexed Views.
The usage of indexed views can drastically increase the performace of select
queries at the cost insert, update, and delete. The following is a
reasonable introductory article which covers the concept:
http://www.microsoft.com/technet/prodtechnol/sql/2005/impprfiv.mspx
Luke
"Lynn" <Lynn@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:0E95254A-1C42-49D7-BE78-4F64C93CD18A@.microsoft.com...
> Hi,
> Please advise whether SQL 2005 has the smiliar function as belows:
> Materialized View in Oracle
> Materialized Query Tables in DB2
> Thank you.
> --
> Best Regards,
> Lynn
Please advise whether SQL 2005 has the smiliar function as belows:
Materialized View in Oracle
Materialized Query Tables in DB2
Thank you.
Best Regards,
Lynn
Im not sure since I dont work with either Oracle or DB2 but I believe
indexed view would be something like that.
MC
"Lynn" <Lynn@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:0E95254A-1C42-49D7-BE78-4F64C93CD18A@.microsoft.com...
> Hi,
> Please advise whether SQL 2005 has the smiliar function as belows:
> Materialized View in Oracle
> Materialized Query Tables in DB2
> Thank you.
> --
> Best Regards,
> Lynn
|||The purpose of this function is that the view or table is not repopulated the
data when it's queried. Usually, the data is already stored in that kind of
table when the original table is updated. When this kind of view/table is
queried, the data already exists without parsing the query to original table
and repopulated the table again. Indexed view in SQL 2005 don't have this
function.
Anyway, thanks.
Best Regards,
Lynn
"MC" wrote:
> Im not sure since I dont work with either Oracle or DB2 but I believe
> indexed view would be something like that.
>
> MC
> "Lynn" <Lynn@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:0E95254A-1C42-49D7-BE78-4F64C93CD18A@.microsoft.com...
>
>
|||indexed views store the aggregate result of a query (group by something
queries) and when the source table change, the view content is updated too.
like a table, you can create an index on it.
for example, if you always want to sum the sales by product, the indexed
view will contains the result of this grouping with an index on the product
column. when the source table is updated the view is updated too at the same
time so the total by product contains the new total.
when a user ask for the total of sales by product (or the sales for a group
of products or all the products) SQL server will use the indexed views
instead of scanning the big source table.
so its exactly the result you looking for.
"Lynn" <Lynn@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:56067DCB-847F-4242-9B64-59463B9B79D6@.microsoft.com...[vbcol=seagreen]
> The purpose of this function is that the view or table is not repopulated
> the
> data when it's queried. Usually, the data is already stored in that kind
> of
> table when the original table is updated. When this kind of view/table is
> queried, the data already exists without parsing the query to original
> table
> and repopulated the table again. Indexed view in SQL 2005 don't have this
> function.
> Anyway, thanks.
> --
> Best Regards,
> Lynn
>
> "MC" wrote:
|||Lynn,
"On commit" materialized views in Oracle are conceptually the same as schema
bound views in SQL Server which have had a unique clustered index applied
prior to any other index. The Oracle materialized view grew out of the
snapshot functionality and has abilities like stale tolerance that do not
appear to be part of SQL Server Indexed Views.
The usage of indexed views can drastically increase the performace of select
queries at the cost insert, update, and delete. The following is a
reasonable introductory article which covers the concept:
http://www.microsoft.com/technet/prodtechnol/sql/2005/impprfiv.mspx
Luke
"Lynn" <Lynn@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:0E95254A-1C42-49D7-BE78-4F64C93CD18A@.microsoft.com...
> Hi,
> Please advise whether SQL 2005 has the smiliar function as belows:
> Materialized View in Oracle
> Materialized Query Tables in DB2
> Thank you.
> --
> Best Regards,
> Lynn
Materialized view or table function in SQL 2005
Hi,
Please advise whether SQL 2005 has the smiliar function as belows:
Materialized View in Oracle
Materialized Query Tables in DB2
Thank you.
--
Best Regards,
LynnIm not sure since I dont work with either Oracle or DB2 but I believe
indexed view would be something like that.
MC
"Lynn" <Lynn@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:0E95254A-1C42-49D7-BE78-4F64C93CD18A@.microsoft.com...
> Hi,
> Please advise whether SQL 2005 has the smiliar function as belows:
> Materialized View in Oracle
> Materialized Query Tables in DB2
> Thank you.
> --
> Best Regards,
> Lynn|||The purpose of this function is that the view or table is not repopulated th
e
data when it's queried. Usually, the data is already stored in that kind of
table when the original table is updated. When this kind of view/table is
queried, the data already exists without parsing the query to original table
and repopulated the table again. Indexed view in SQL 2005 don't have this
function.
Anyway, thanks.
--
Best Regards,
Lynn
"MC" wrote:
> Im not sure since I dont work with either Oracle or DB2 but I believe
> indexed view would be something like that.
>
> MC
> "Lynn" <Lynn@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:0E95254A-1C42-49D7-BE78-4F64C93CD18A@.microsoft.com...
>
>|||indexed views store the aggregate result of a query (group by something
queries) and when the source table change, the view content is updated too.
like a table, you can create an index on it.
for example, if you always want to sum the sales by product, the indexed
view will contains the result of this grouping with an index on the product
column. when the source table is updated the view is updated too at the same
time so the total by product contains the new total.
when a user ask for the total of sales by product (or the sales for a group
of products or all the products) SQL server will use the indexed views
instead of scanning the big source table.
so its exactly the result you looking for.
"Lynn" <Lynn@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:56067DCB-847F-4242-9B64-59463B9B79D6@.microsoft.com...[vbcol=seagreen]
> The purpose of this function is that the view or table is not repopulated
> the
> data when it's queried. Usually, the data is already stored in that kind
> of
> table when the original table is updated. When this kind of view/table is
> queried, the data already exists without parsing the query to original
> table
> and repopulated the table again. Indexed view in SQL 2005 don't have this
> function.
> Anyway, thanks.
> --
> Best Regards,
> Lynn
>
> "MC" wrote:
>|||Lynn,
"On commit" materialized views in Oracle are conceptually the same as schema
bound views in SQL Server which have had a unique clustered index applied
prior to any other index. The Oracle materialized view grew out of the
snapshot functionality and has abilities like stale tolerance that do not
appear to be part of SQL Server Indexed Views.
The usage of indexed views can drastically increase the performace of select
queries at the cost insert, update, and delete. The following is a
reasonable introductory article which covers the concept:
http://www.microsoft.com/technet/pr...5/impprfiv.mspx
Luke
"Lynn" <Lynn@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:0E95254A-1C42-49D7-BE78-4F64C93CD18A@.microsoft.com...
> Hi,
> Please advise whether SQL 2005 has the smiliar function as belows:
> Materialized View in Oracle
> Materialized Query Tables in DB2
> Thank you.
> --
> Best Regards,
> Lynn
Please advise whether SQL 2005 has the smiliar function as belows:
Materialized View in Oracle
Materialized Query Tables in DB2
Thank you.
--
Best Regards,
LynnIm not sure since I dont work with either Oracle or DB2 but I believe
indexed view would be something like that.
MC
"Lynn" <Lynn@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:0E95254A-1C42-49D7-BE78-4F64C93CD18A@.microsoft.com...
> Hi,
> Please advise whether SQL 2005 has the smiliar function as belows:
> Materialized View in Oracle
> Materialized Query Tables in DB2
> Thank you.
> --
> Best Regards,
> Lynn|||The purpose of this function is that the view or table is not repopulated th
e
data when it's queried. Usually, the data is already stored in that kind of
table when the original table is updated. When this kind of view/table is
queried, the data already exists without parsing the query to original table
and repopulated the table again. Indexed view in SQL 2005 don't have this
function.
Anyway, thanks.
--
Best Regards,
Lynn
"MC" wrote:
> Im not sure since I dont work with either Oracle or DB2 but I believe
> indexed view would be something like that.
>
> MC
> "Lynn" <Lynn@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:0E95254A-1C42-49D7-BE78-4F64C93CD18A@.microsoft.com...
>
>|||indexed views store the aggregate result of a query (group by something
queries) and when the source table change, the view content is updated too.
like a table, you can create an index on it.
for example, if you always want to sum the sales by product, the indexed
view will contains the result of this grouping with an index on the product
column. when the source table is updated the view is updated too at the same
time so the total by product contains the new total.
when a user ask for the total of sales by product (or the sales for a group
of products or all the products) SQL server will use the indexed views
instead of scanning the big source table.
so its exactly the result you looking for.
"Lynn" <Lynn@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:56067DCB-847F-4242-9B64-59463B9B79D6@.microsoft.com...[vbcol=seagreen]
> The purpose of this function is that the view or table is not repopulated
> the
> data when it's queried. Usually, the data is already stored in that kind
> of
> table when the original table is updated. When this kind of view/table is
> queried, the data already exists without parsing the query to original
> table
> and repopulated the table again. Indexed view in SQL 2005 don't have this
> function.
> Anyway, thanks.
> --
> Best Regards,
> Lynn
>
> "MC" wrote:
>|||Lynn,
"On commit" materialized views in Oracle are conceptually the same as schema
bound views in SQL Server which have had a unique clustered index applied
prior to any other index. The Oracle materialized view grew out of the
snapshot functionality and has abilities like stale tolerance that do not
appear to be part of SQL Server Indexed Views.
The usage of indexed views can drastically increase the performace of select
queries at the cost insert, update, and delete. The following is a
reasonable introductory article which covers the concept:
http://www.microsoft.com/technet/pr...5/impprfiv.mspx
Luke
"Lynn" <Lynn@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:0E95254A-1C42-49D7-BE78-4F64C93CD18A@.microsoft.com...
> Hi,
> Please advise whether SQL 2005 has the smiliar function as belows:
> Materialized View in Oracle
> Materialized Query Tables in DB2
> Thank you.
> --
> Best Regards,
> Lynn
Materialized View Error 8908
Microsoft SQL Server 2005 - 9.00.1187.07
dbcc checkdb is failing with an interesting message:
Msg 8908, Level 16, State 1, Line 1
Indexed view 'BritishEnglishMV' (object ID 226099846) does not contain all rows that the view definition produces. Refer to Books Online for more information on this error. This does not necessarily represent an integrity issue with the data in this database.
The data materialized in the indexed view is exactly the same as the data in the underlying tables...
Books online has no info on this error.
Rebuilding the index fixes the problem.
I will use an example to explain. If a view contains for examle an aggregation SUM, then inserting of new value to underlying table will add a new value to this sum. If the SUM was produced originally from a sequence of numbers, say a1, a2, ..., an, and the new inserted value is bb, then updating the indexed view means
(a1+a2+a3+...+an) + bb while recalculating the indexed view may prform the sum in different order.
We are still working on providing more information about warnings and errors we generate. This should improve substantially by the time we ship the final release of SQL Server 2005.
Lubor Kollar
materialized view equivalent ?
Hi,
Oracle query :
create materialized view view1 as select *from test
Is there any equivalent for the above query in SQL Server (specifically for "materialized views")
Please advice,
Thanks,
SamNot yet, at least not yet officially ;)|||Oracle query :
create materialized view view1 as select *from test
OK, I'll bite. What in the world is a materialized view? :confused:
It's not pulling a rabbit out of a hat, is it?|||Check out Indexed Views (http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/default.asp?url=/library/en-us/dnsqlmag2k/html/IndexedViews.asp). They aren't quite the same as materialized views (unless you can index every column), but they get PFC (within a Pentium Floating-point Calculation) of a materialized view.
-PatP|||Thanks Pat!|||PFC (within a Pentium Floating-point Calculation) that's funny!!!|||that's funny!!!Only if you have the background to appreciate the joke. Most people today (even the geeks) wouldn't have a clue why we think it is funny.
-PatP|||it's funny on two completely different levels
first, it actually stands for "pretty darned close"
second, well, i won't spoil it for ya :)
remember the bug in the windows 3.1 calculator? i still have that executable somewhere...|||Fubar... and Darned close at that!
Heck, I remember the original problems with die 510 of the P-60 (the one that incorporated the 80387 FPU onto the 81587 CPU to produce the first "single chip" CPU/FPU in the Intel line). It was the first chip that we knew of that had what Andy later called the "floating-point anomoly".
I don't think that the bug you are refering to was caused by software (although the 3.1 calculator had plenty of those too). I think that was a math problem that was a manifestation of the FPU problems on the early Pentium chips. If so, the problem hit anything doing Floating Point math, including Excel, 1-2-3, Calc-star, etc. It also caused havok with Autocad and other related CAD software.
-PatP
Oracle query :
create materialized view view1 as select *from test
Is there any equivalent for the above query in SQL Server (specifically for "materialized views")
Please advice,
Thanks,
SamNot yet, at least not yet officially ;)|||Oracle query :
create materialized view view1 as select *from test
OK, I'll bite. What in the world is a materialized view? :confused:
It's not pulling a rabbit out of a hat, is it?|||Check out Indexed Views (http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/default.asp?url=/library/en-us/dnsqlmag2k/html/IndexedViews.asp). They aren't quite the same as materialized views (unless you can index every column), but they get PFC (within a Pentium Floating-point Calculation) of a materialized view.
-PatP|||Thanks Pat!|||PFC (within a Pentium Floating-point Calculation) that's funny!!!|||that's funny!!!Only if you have the background to appreciate the joke. Most people today (even the geeks) wouldn't have a clue why we think it is funny.
-PatP|||it's funny on two completely different levels
first, it actually stands for "pretty darned close"
second, well, i won't spoil it for ya :)
remember the bug in the windows 3.1 calculator? i still have that executable somewhere...|||Fubar... and Darned close at that!
Heck, I remember the original problems with die 510 of the P-60 (the one that incorporated the 80387 FPU onto the 81587 CPU to produce the first "single chip" CPU/FPU in the Intel line). It was the first chip that we knew of that had what Andy later called the "floating-point anomoly".
I don't think that the bug you are refering to was caused by software (although the 3.1 calculator had plenty of those too). I think that was a math problem that was a manifestation of the FPU problems on the early Pentium chips. If so, the problem hit anything doing Floating Point math, including Excel, 1-2-3, Calc-star, etc. It also caused havok with Autocad and other related CAD software.
-PatP
Saturday, February 25, 2012
Materialized reference dimensions
I have a cube that has a chain ofreferenced dimensions in it. Analysis Services says all the dimensions in the chain must be "materialized". In fact, it demands it. But when I set them to "materialized", the cube won't process. I get this error message:
Errors in the OLAP storage engine: An error occurred while processing the '2004Trx' partition of the 'Membership Counts' measure group for the 'Memberships' cube from the DimensionsOnly database.
I'm stuck. Anyone have any ideas on how to get around this?
Thanks.
Are there more messages you are getting along with one you mention above?
Is there missing key or something like that?
Edward.
--
This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)