X-Original-To: pgsql-performance-postgresql.org@localhost.postgresql.org Received: from localhost (mx1.hub.org [200.46.208.251]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 10D429F946D; Tue, 9 May 2006 10:32:11 -0300 (ADT) Received: from postgresql.org ([200.46.204.71]) by localhost (mx1.hub.org [200.46.208.251]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 59706-09; Tue, 9 May 2006 10:32:01 -0300 (ADT) X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey- X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey- Received: from sss.pgh.pa.us (sss.pgh.pa.us [66.207.139.130]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 098859F931D; Tue, 9 May 2006 10:32:01 -0300 (ADT) Received: from sss2.sss.pgh.pa.us (tgl@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sss.pgh.pa.us (8.13.6/8.13.6) with ESMTP id k49DVumQ010727; Tue, 9 May 2006 09:31:56 -0400 (EDT) To: PFC cc: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org, pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org Subject: Re: Big IN() clauses etc : feature proposal In-reply-to: References: <445F7FF8.6070707@comcast.net> <1147110142.32369.7.camel@archimedes> <20060508175013.GY99570@pervasive.com> <28288.1147111196@sss.pgh.pa.us> Comments: In-reply-to PFC message dated "Tue, 09 May 2006 10:38:17 +0200" Date: Tue, 09 May 2006 09:31:56 -0400 Message-ID: <10726.1147181516@sss.pgh.pa.us> From: Tom Lane X-Virus-Scanned: Maia Mailguard 1.0.1 X-Archive-Number: 200605/179 X-Sequence-Number: 18966 PFC writes: > Feature proposal : > A way to store query results in a named buffer and reuse them in the next > queries. Why not just fix the speed issues you're complaining about with temp tables? I see no reason to invent a new concept. (Now, "just fix" might be easier said than done, but inventing an essentially duplicate facility would be a lot of work too.) regards, tom lane