From: Rod Taylor <rbt@rbt.ca>
To: Michael A Nachbaur <mike@nachbaur.com>
Cc: pgsql-sql@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: Temporary table performance?
Date: 26 Jun 2003 13:23:39 -0400
Message-ID: <1056648218.7041.11.camel@jester> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <200306260914.41245.mike@nachbaur.com>
References: <200306260914.41245.mike@nachbaur.com>
> I could then do some queries against the temporary table without having to
> regenerate the results every time I want to show a "Page 299 of 500" toolbar.
Performance wise temp tables are the same as a regular table but without
WAL on the table contents.
> Would I be better off just sucking this data into an in-memory data structure,
> or can I use a temp table as an easy-to-use alternative?
You are probably better off using a cursor.
--
Rod Taylor <rbt@rbt.ca>
PGP Key: http://www.rbt.ca/rbtpub.ascAttachments:
signature.asc (application/pgp-signature, 186B) download
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Reply to all the recipients using the --to and --cc options:
reply via email
To: pgsql-sql@postgresql.org
Cc: rbt@rbt.ca, mike@nachbaur.com
Subject: Re: Temporary table performance?
In-Reply-To: <1056648218.7041.11.camel@jester>
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
This inbox is served by DDX for PostgreSQL; see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox