Re: Temp tables being written to disk. Avoidable?

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Paul McGarry <PaulM(at)opentec(dot)com(dot)au>
Cc: "'pgsql-sql(at)postgresql(dot)org'" <pgsql-sql(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Temp tables being written to disk. Avoidable?
Date: 2001-08-15 03:57:57
Message-ID: 24380.997847877@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-sql

Paul McGarry <PaulM(at)opentec(dot)com(dot)au> writes:
> Can I avoid having the temp table written to disk

Not at present --- temp tables are not different from real tables,
except for some naming shenanigans. So creation of a temp table will
involve some disk hits.

Do you really *need* a temp table, as opposed to writing a
sub-SELECT-in-the-FROM-clause? ISTM that that feature takes care
of most of the simple notational reasons for wanting a temp table.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-sql by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2001-08-15 04:35:00 Re: Re: DateDiff, IsNull?
Previous Message Bill 2001-08-15 03:44:27 Re: DateDiff, IsNull?