| From: | "Josh Berkus" <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, "Josh Berkus" <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Ludwig Lim <lud_nowhere_man(at)yahoo(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Mailing List <pgsql-sql(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Temporary tables and indexes |
| Date: | 2002-10-09 04:49:18 |
| Message-ID: | web-1776588@davinci.ethosmedia.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-sql |
Tom,
> > I'm kind of surprised that it's possible to index a temporary
> table.
> > There's not much point in doing so.
>
> Why not? You seem to be equating "temporary" with "small", but I
> don't
> see why that must be so.
Nah. I'm equating "temporary" with "query twice and throw away", which
isn't necessarily what everyone else does.
BTW, Ludwig, in postgresql versions < 7.2.0, I noticed that sometimes
indexes didn't seem to completely go away (i.e. I would get a name
conflict if I tried to drop & re-create in the same transaction)
without a VACUUM. If you're using 7.1.3, you should upgrade for this
reason.
-Josh Berkus
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Manfred Koizar | 2002-10-09 08:00:03 | Re: Large databases, performance |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2002-10-09 04:45:12 | Re: Temporary tables and indexes |