DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma;
	h=message-id:date:from:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references;
	b=UcyHDdEDBwddup+8OyIL5hqGuiF7rbwdTXXdKmtsHjdFYFpprXLPvfZdo0s55Ewl2l6/7Ml/CQUi+iI8Pd+CtvqqvxzLZm1IjpFFmD64Tz6OxYBk88i7BeQ02RTDtRaMfzlcgpss0wmKjVGVZ14RC80zhbHsA/pJQunoUbTsOgg=
Message-ID: <f0c828c40804091641w36b98fb9o7a4019f576d53ec6@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 9 Apr 2008 19:41:18 -0400
From: "samantha mahindrakar" <sam.mahindrakar@gmail.com>
To: Decibel! <decibel@decibel.org>
Subject: Re: Performance with temporary table
Cc: "Alvaro Herrera" <alvherre@commandprompt.com>,
	pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
In-Reply-To: <83F6D568-0641-42CD-8A8D-845119CB3BA1@decibel.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline
References: <f0c828c40804071127u512a5f89ka7866a148e3c7c21@mail.gmail.com>
	<20080408161745.GB9062@alvh.no-ip.org>
	<f0c828c40804081228x6e1edf2l881fe0725f1a5504@mail.gmail.com>
	<20080408194310.GP9062@alvh.no-ip.org>
	<83F6D568-0641-42CD-8A8D-845119CB3BA1@decibel.org>

Hi
The reason for using the temporary table is that i need this data
buffered somewhere so that i can use it for later computation. And the
fact that for each imputation i need to have historical data from 10
previous weeks makes it necessary to create something that can hold
the data. However once the computation is done for each record i
wouldn't need that historical data for that record. I Would be moving
on to the next record and find its own historical data.
Is there any way i can avoid using temp table?

Samantha

On Wed, Apr 9, 2008 at 4:09 PM, Decibel! <decibel@decibel.org> wrote:
> On Apr 8, 2008, at 2:43 PM, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
>
> > samantha mahindrakar escribi=F3:
> >
> > > Well instead of creating a temp table everytime i just created a
> > > permanant table and insert the data into it everytime and truncate it=
.
> > > I created indexes on this permanent table too. This did improve the
> > > performance to some extent.
> > >
> > > Does using permanant tables also bloat the catalog or hinder the
> performance?
> > >
> >
> > In terms of catalog usage, permanent tables behave exactly the same as
> > temp tables.
> >
>
>  True, but the point is that you're not bloating the catalogs with thousa=
nds
> of temp table entries.
>
>  I agree with others though: it certainly doesn't sound like there's any
> reason to be using temp tables here at all. This sounds like a case of
> trying to apply procedural programming techniques to a database instead o=
f
> using set theory (which generally doesn't work well).
>  --
>  Decibel!, aka Jim C. Nasby, Database Architect  decibel@decibel.org
>  Give your computer some brain candy! www.distributed.net Team #1828
>
>
>