Subject: Re: Temporary table performance?
From: Rod Taylor <rbt@rbt.ca>
To: Michael A Nachbaur <mike@nachbaur.com>
Cc: pgsql-sql@postgresql.org
In-Reply-To: <200306260914.41245.mike@nachbaur.com>
References: <200306260914.41245.mike@nachbaur.com>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1;
	protocol="application/pgp-signature";
	boundary="=-yfEqFhSnaGbIx7HeAdkN"
Message-Id: <1056648218.7041.11.camel@jester>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Date: 26 Jun 2003 13:23:39 -0400

--=-yfEqFhSnaGbIx7HeAdkN
Content-Type: text/plain
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

> I could then do some queries against the temporary table without having t=
o=20
> regenerate the results every time I want to show a "Page 299 of 500" tool=
bar.

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 struc=
ture,=20
> or can I use a temp table as an easy-to-use alternative?

You are probably better off using a cursor.

--=20
Rod Taylor <rbt@rbt.ca>

PGP Key: http://www.rbt.ca/rbtpub.asc

--=-yfEqFhSnaGbIx7HeAdkN
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc
Content-Description: This is a digitally signed message part

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.2 (FreeBSD)

iD8DBQA++ywZ6DETLow6vwwRAnFsAJ4wKjo3sC3soqU6WkcW3WAxHOIW2QCcDl1p
TiZZjAW8ceCDdzLHhU+tMyU=
=eJBr
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--=-yfEqFhSnaGbIx7HeAdkN--