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 8D3399FA2F8; Tue, 9 May 2006 16:13:18 -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 05630-09; Tue, 9 May 2006 16:13:08 -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 3076A9F931E; Tue, 9 May 2006 16:13:08 -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 k49JD17Y016681; Tue, 9 May 2006 15:13:01 -0400 (EDT) To: PFC cc: "Mitchell Skinner" , pgsql-performance@postgresql.org, pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org Subject: Re: [HACKERS] 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> <20060509105214.P90693@vesihiisi.cksoft.de> <20060509113337.M90693@vesihiisi.cksoft.de> <20060509103632.GD29652@svana.org> <1147190285.32304.43.camel@firebolt> Comments: In-reply-to PFC message dated "Tue, 09 May 2006 18:38:51 +0200" Date: Tue, 09 May 2006 15:13:01 -0400 Message-ID: <16680.1147201981@sss.pgh.pa.us> From: Tom Lane X-Virus-Scanned: Maia Mailguard 1.0.1 X-Archive-Number: 200605/196 X-Sequence-Number: 18983 PFC writes: > Fun thing is, the rowcount from a temp table (which is the problem here) > should be available without ANALYZE ; as the temp table is not concurrent, > it would be simple to inc/decrement a counter on INSERT/DELETE... No, because MVCC rules still apply. regards, tom lane