From: | "David G(dot) Johnston" <david(dot)g(dot)johnston(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | "dbyzaa(at)163(dot)com" <dbyzaa(at)163(dot)com> |
Cc: | pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, pgsql-performance <pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org>, pgsql-general <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: [HACKERS] temporary table vs array performance |
Date: | 2016-09-26 15:49:42 |
Message-ID: | CAKFQuwZWDqyKEtDZ4U4g1vnsvcGa=N4tzeXgK0rK3naJKy3j=w@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general pgsql-hackers pgsql-performance |
Its considered bad form to post to multiple lists. Please pick the most
relevant one - in this case I'd suggest -general.
On Mon, Sep 26, 2016 at 8:39 AM, dbyzaa(at)163(dot)com <dbyzaa(at)163(dot)com> wrote:
>
> Array is not convenient to use in function, whether
> there are other methods can be replaced temp table in function
>
>
I have no difficulty using arrays in functions.
As for "other methods" - you can use CTE (WITH) to create a truly local
table - updating the catalogs by using a temp table is indeed quite
expensive.
WITH vals AS ( VALUES (1, 'lw'), (2, 'lw2') )
SELECT * FROM vals;
David J.
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Pavel Stehule | 2016-09-26 16:16:31 | Re: [HACKERS] temporary table vs array performance |
Previous Message | dbyzaa@163.com | 2016-09-26 15:39:11 | temporary table vs array performance |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Enrique Meneses | 2016-09-26 16:04:05 | Re: Allowing GIN array_ops to work on anyarray |
Previous Message | dbyzaa@163.com | 2016-09-26 15:39:11 | temporary table vs array performance |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Knels, Udo | 2016-09-26 15:59:58 | Re: Problem with performance using query with unnest after migrating from V9.1 to V9.2 and higher |
Previous Message | dbyzaa@163.com | 2016-09-26 15:39:11 | temporary table vs array performance |