| From: | Martijn van Oosterhout <kleptog(at)svana(dot)org> |
|---|---|
| To: | Greg Stark <gsstark(at)mit(dot)edu> |
| Cc: | "Jim C(dot) Nasby" <jnasby(at)pervasive(dot)com>, PFC <lists(at)peufeu(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: [HACKERS] Big IN() clauses etc : feature proposal |
| Date: | 2006-05-11 18:43:46 |
| Message-ID: | 20060511184346.GL30113@svana.org |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers pgsql-performance |
On Thu, May 11, 2006 at 11:35:34AM -0400, Greg Stark wrote:
> I can say that I've seen plenty of instances where the ability to create
> temporary tables very quickly with no overhead over the original query would
> be useful.
I wonder if this requires what the standard refers to as a global
temporary table. As I read it (which may be wrong, I find the language
obtuse), a global temporary table is a temporary table whose structure
is predefined. So, you'd define it once, updating the catalog only once
but still get a table that is emptied each startup.
Ofcourse, it may not be what the standard means, but it still seems
like a useful idea, to cut down on schema bloat.
Have a nice day,
--
Martijn van Oosterhout <kleptog(at)svana(dot)org> http://svana.org/kleptog/
> From each according to his ability. To each according to his ability to litigate.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Josh Berkus | 2006-05-11 19:04:20 | Re: hashagg, statistisics and excessive memory allocation |
| Previous Message | Stefan Kaltenbrunner | 2006-05-11 18:36:25 | hashagg, statistisics and excessive memory allocation |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Jim C. Nasby | 2006-05-11 19:57:10 | Re: [HACKERS] Big IN() clauses etc : feature proposal |
| Previous Message | Martijn van Oosterhout | 2006-05-11 18:03:19 | Re: [HACKERS] Big IN() clauses etc : feature proposal |