[ https://issues.redhat.com/browse/TEIIDSB-170?page=com.atlassian.jira.plug... ] Steven Hawkins commented on TEIIDSB-170: ---------------------------------------- You are differentiating between the teiid fqn for the materialization source target table and the name in source for the target table. Since you are generating only a single materialization schema that is hitting the same materialization target for the whole vdb - these are nearly identical. The teiid fqn is just qualified by the materialization schema name. In any case I'm not saying that it has to exactly be the materialization target property - it can be something else that conveys it's a base name for automation, which will at least be augmented by the "deployment number". In other posts I believe you've advocated for not worrying about the efficiency of the operator, which makes sense given that the build will far out way anything that we're doing otherwise. So if there are other benefits, why worry about efficiency for just this? Why lock in to any legacy decisions with regards to DDL structure into the operator? Especially if there is a danger that this will get forked for standalone lsp efforts. Can you elaborate what that means? You're trying to based upon the ddl assign cache names that will be associated to views - which could be a combination of vdb, schema, view name, deployment number - how does a prefix come into play? -- This message was sent by Atlassian Jira (v7.13.8#713008)