Received: from localhost (postgresql.org [64.49.215.8])
	by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0828B475E7B
	for <pgsql-sql@postgresql.org>; Wed,  9 Oct 2002 00:50:34 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from davinci.ethosmedia.com (davinci.ethosmedia.com [209.10.40.250])
	by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 51A37475E60
	for <pgsql-sql@postgresql.org>; Wed,  9 Oct 2002 00:50:33 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from [63.195.55.98] (account <josh@agliodbs.com>)
	by davinci.ethosmedia.com (CommuniGate Pro WebUser 3.5.9)
	with HTTP id 1776588; Tue, 08 Oct 2002 21:49:18 -0700
From: "Josh Berkus" <josh@agliodbs.com>
Subject: Re: Temporary tables and indexes 
To: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>, "Josh Berkus" <josh@agliodbs.com>
Cc: Ludwig Lim <lud_nowhere_man@yahoo.com>,
	PostgreSQL Mailing List <pgsql-sql@postgresql.org>
X-Mailer: CommuniGate Pro Web Mailer v.3.5.9
Date: Tue, 08 Oct 2002 21:49:18 -0700
Message-ID: <web-1776588@davinci.ethosmedia.com>
In-Reply-To: <17309.1034138712@sss.pgh.pa.us>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Virus-Scanned: by AMaViS new-20020517
X-Archive-Number: 200210/118
X-Sequence-Number: 9835

Tom,

> > I'm kind of surprised that it's possible to index a temporary
> table.
> > There's not much point in doing so.
> 
> Why not?  You seem to be equating "temporary" with "small", but I
> don't
> see why that must be so.

Nah.  I'm equating "temporary" with "query twice and throw away", which
isn't necessarily what everyone else does.

BTW, Ludwig, in postgresql versions < 7.2.0, I noticed that sometimes
indexes didn't seem to completely go away (i.e. I would get a name
conflict if I tried to drop & re-create in the same transaction)
without a VACUUM.  If you're using 7.1.3, you should upgrade for this
reason.

-Josh Berkus