| From: | Robert Treat <xzilla(at)users(dot)sourceforge(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Cc: | "Anton Melser" <melser(dot)anton(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: pg temp tables |
| Date: | 2007-03-06 04:11:51 |
| Message-ID: | 200703052311.51838.xzilla@users.sourceforge.net |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general |
On Saturday 03 March 2007 10:33, Anton Melser wrote:
> Hi,
> I have been going around telling everyone that there is no point using
> physical tables in postgres for temporary storage within a procedure.
> Why bother bothering the system with something which is only used in
> one procedure I said to myself... I have just learnt that with MS Sql
> Server, this is not the case, and that there are locks on some system
> table and temp tables eat up memory and lots of other unfortunate
> things. Can someone give me a 101 on temp table considerations? Or
> rather give me "the good link"?
The main issue against using temp tables involve bloat of some of the system
catalogs, but it's no worse than doing create/drop cycles with standard
tables, and better because they don't suffer as much i/o load.
--
Robert Treat
Build A Brighter LAMP :: Linux Apache {middleware} PostgreSQL
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Robert Treat | 2007-03-06 04:26:13 | Re: giving a user permission to kill their processes only |
| Previous Message | Robert Treat | 2007-03-06 04:00:05 | Re: real multi-master replication? |