The relational database provides programmers with a high degree of abstraction from the physical world of the computer. You can't tell where on the disk the RDBMS is putting each row of a table. For all you know, information in a single row might be split up and spread out across multiple disk drives. The RDBMS lets you add a column to a billion-row table. Is the new information for each row going to be placed next to the pre-existing columns or will a big new block of disk space be allocated to hold the new column value for all billion rows? You can't know and shouldn't really care.
A view is a way of building even greater abstraction.
Suppose that Jane in marketing says that she wants to see a table containing the following information:
Then Jane adds "I want to see this every day, updated with the latest information. I want to have a programmer write me some desktop software that connects directly to the database and looks at this information; I don't want my desktop software breaking if you reorganize the data model."select u.user_id,
u.email,
count(ucm.page_id) as n_pages,
count(bb.msg_id) as n_msgs,
count(c.comment_id) as n_comments
from users u, user_content_map ucm, bboard bb, comments c
where u.user_id = ucm.user_id(+)
and u.user_id = bb.user_id(+)
and u.user_id = c.user_id(+)
group by u.user_id, u.email
order by upper(email)
To Jane, this will look and act just like a table when she queries it:create or replace view janes_marketing_view
as
select u.user_id,
u.email,
count(ucm.page_id) as n_pages,
count(bb.msg_id) as n_msgs,
count(c.comment_id) as n_comments
from users u, user_content_map ucm, bboard bb, comments c
where u.user_id = ucm.user_id(+)
and u.user_id = bb.user_id(+)
and u.user_id = c.user_id(+)
group by u.user_id, u.email
order by upper(u.email)
Why should she need to be aware that information is coming from four tables? Or that you've reorganized the RDBMS so that the information subsequently comes from six tables?
select * from janes_marketing_view;
If a bunch of hippie idealists are running the hospital, they'll think that the medical doctors shouldn't be aware of a patient's insurance status. So when a doc is looking up a patient's medical record, the looking is done through
create table patients (
patient_id integer primary key,
patient_name varchar(100),
hiv_positive_p char(1),
insurance_p char(1),
...
);
The folks over in accounting shouldn't get access to the patients' medical records just because they're trying to squeeze money out of them:
create view patients_clinical
as
select patient_id, patient_name, hiv_positive_p from patients;
Relational databases have elaborate permission systems similar to those on time-shared computer systems. Each person in a hospital has a unique database user ID. Permission will be granted to view or modify certain tables on a per-user or per-group-of-users basis. Generally the RDBMS permissions facilities aren't very useful for Web applications. It is the Web server that is talking to the database, not a user's desktop computer. So the Web server is responsible for figuring out who is requesting a page and how much to show in response.
create view patients_accounting
as
select patient_id, patient_name, insurance_p from patients;
Note that in the privacy example (above) we were using the view to leave unwanted columns behind whereas here we are using the view to leave behind unwanted rows.
create or replace view sh_orders_reportable
as
select * from sh_orders
where order_state not in ('confirmed','failed_authorization','void');
If we add some order states or otherwise change the data model, the reporting programs need not be touched; we only have to keep this view definition up to date. Note that you can define every view with "create or replace view" rather than "create view"; this saves a bit of typing when you have to edit the definition later.
If you've used select * to define a view and
subsequently alter any of the underlying tables, you have to redefine
the view. Otherwise, your view won't contain any of the new columns.
You might consider this a bug but Oracle has documented it,
thus turning the behavior into a feature.
select users.user_id, users.email, classified_ads.posted
from users, classified_ads
where users.user_id = classified_ads.user_id(+)
order by users.email, posted;
...
USER_ID EMAIL POSTED
---------- ----------------------------------- ----------
52790 dbrager@mindspring.com
37461 dbraun@scdt.intel.com
52791 dbrenner@flash.net
47177 dbronz@free.polbox.pl
37296 dbrouse@enter.net
47178 dbrown@cyberhighway.net
36985 dbrown@uniden.com 1998-03-05
36985 dbrown@uniden.com 1998-03-10
34283 dbs117@amaze.net
52792 dbsikorski@yahoo.com
...
The plus sign after classified_ads.user_id is our
instruction to Oracle to "add NULL rows if you can't meet this JOIN
constraint".
Suppose that this report has gotten very long and we're only interested
in users whose email addresses start with "db". We can add a WHERE
clause constraint on the email column of the
users table:
Suppose that we decide we're only interested in classified ads since January 1, 1999. Let's try the naive approach, adding another WHERE clause constraint, this time on a column from the
select users.user_id, users.email, classified_ads.posted
from users, classified_ads
where users.user_id = classified_ads.user_id(+)
and users.email like 'db%'
order by users.email, posted;
USER_ID EMAIL POSTED
---------- ------------------------------ ----------
71668 db-designs@emeraldnet.net
112295 db1@sisna.com
137640 db25@umail.umd.edu
35102 db44@aol.com 1999-12-23
59279 db4rs@aol.com
95190 db@astro.com.au
17474 db@hotmail.com
248220 db@indianhospitality.com
40134 db@spindelvision.com 1999-02-04
144420 db_chang@yahoo.com
15020 dbaaru@mindspring.com
...
classified_ads table:
Hey! This completely wrecked our outer join! All of the rows where the user had not posted any ads have now disappeared. Why? They didn't meet the
select users.user_id, users.email, classified_ads.posted
from users, classified_ads
where users.user_id = classified_ads.user_id(+)
and users.email like 'db%'
and classified_ads.posted > '1999-01-01'
order by users.email, posted;
USER_ID EMAIL POSTED
---------- ------------------------------ ----------
35102 db44@aol.com 1999-12-23
40134 db@spindelvision.com 1999-02-04
16979 dbdors@ev1.net 2000-10-03
16979 dbdors@ev1.net 2000-10-26
235920 dbendo@mindspring.com 2000-08-03
258161 dbouchar@bell.mma.edu 2000-10-26
39921 dbp@agora.rdrop.com 1999-06-03
39921 dbp@agora.rdrop.com 1999-11-05
8 rows selected.
and classified_ads.posted > '1999-01-01'
constraint. The outer join added NULLs to every column in the report
where there was no corresponding row in the classified_ads
table. The new constraint is comparing NULL to January 1, 1999 and the
answer is... NULL. That's three-valued logic for you. Any computation
involving a NULL turns out NULL. Each WHERE clause constraint must
evaluate to true for a row to be kept in the result set of the SELECT.
What's the solution? A "view on the fly". Instead of OUTER JOINing the
users table to the classified_ads, we will
OUTER JOIN users to a view of
classified_ads that contains only those ads posted since
January 1, 1999:
Note that we've named our "view on the fly"
select users.user_id, users.email, ad_view.posted
from
users,
(select *
from classified_ads
where posted > '1999-01-01') ad_view
where users.user_id = ad_view.user_id(+)
and users.email like 'db%'
order by users.email, ad_view.posted;
USER_ID EMAIL POSTED
---------- ------------------------------ ----------
71668 db-designs@emeraldnet.net
112295 db1@sisna.com
137640 db25@umail.umd.edu
35102 db44@aol.com 1999-12-23
59279 db4rs@aol.com
95190 db@astro.com.au
17474 db@hotmail.com
248220 db@indianhospitality.com
40134 db@spindelvision.com 1999-02-04
144420 db_chang@yahoo.com
15020 dbaaru@mindspring.com
...
174 rows selected.
ad_view for the
duration of this query.
Materialized views consume space because Oracle is keeping a copy of the data or at least a copy of information derivable from the data. More importantly, a materialized view does not contain up-to-the-minute information. When you query a regular view, your results includes changes made up to the last committed transaction before your SELECT. When you query a materialized view, you're getting results as of the time that the view was created or refreshed. Note that Oracle lets you specify a refresh interval at which the materialized view will automatically be refreshed.
At this point, you'd expect an experienced Oracle user to say "Hey, these aren't new. This is the old CREATE SNAPSHOT facility that we used to keep semi-up-to-date copies of tables on machines across the network!" What is new with materialized views is that you can create them with the ENABLE QUERY REWRITE option. This authorizes the SQL parser to look at a query involving aggregates or JOINs and go to the materialized view instead. Consider the following query, from the ArsDigita Community System's /admin/users/registration-history.tcl page:
For each month, we have a count of how many users registered at photo.net. To execute the query, Oracle must sequentially scan the
select
to_char(registration_date,'YYYYMM') as sort_key,
rtrim(to_char(registration_date,'Month')) as pretty_month,
to_char(registration_date,'YYYY') as pretty_year,
count(*) as n_new
from users
group by
to_char(registration_date,'YYYYMM'),
to_char(registration_date,'Month'),
to_char(registration_date,'YYYY')
order by 1;
SORT_K PRETTY_MO PRET N_NEW
------ --------- ---- ----------
199805 May 1998 898
199806 June 1998 806
199807 July 1998 972
199808 August 1998 849
199809 September 1998 1023
199810 October 1998 1089
199811 November 1998 1005
199812 December 1998 1059
199901 January 1999 1488
199902 February 1999 2148
users table. If the users table grew large and you wanted
the query to be instant, you'd sacrifice some timeliness in the stats
with
Oracle will build this view just after midnight on March 28, 1999. The view will be refreshed every 24 hours after that. Because of the
create materialized view users_by_month
enable query rewrite
refresh complete
start with 1999-03-28
next sysdate + 1
as
select
to_char(registration_date,'YYYYMM') as sort_key,
rtrim(to_char(registration_date,'Month')) as pretty_month,
to_char(registration_date,'YYYY') as pretty_year,
count(*) as n_new
from users
group by
to_char(registration_date,'YYYYMM'),
to_char(registration_date,'Month'),
to_char(registration_date,'YYYY')
order by 1
enable query rewrite clause, Oracle will feel free to grab
data from the view even when a user's query does not mention the view.
For example, given the query
Oracle would ignore the
select count(*)
from users
where rtrim(to_char(registration_date,'Month')) = 'January'
and to_char(registration_date,'YYYY') = '1999'
users table altogether and pull
information from users_by_month. This would give the same
result with much less work. Suppose that the current month is March
1999, though. The query
will also hit the materialized view rather than the
select count(*)
from users
where rtrim(to_char(registration_date,'Month')) = 'March'
and to_char(registration_date,'YYYY') = '1999'
users
table and hence will miss anyone who has registered since midnight
(i.e., the query rewriting will cause a different result to be returned).
More:
---
based on SQL for Web Nerds