On Saturday 03 March 2007 10:33, Anton Melser wrote:
> Hi,
> I have been going around telling everyone that there is no point using
> physical tables in postgres for temporary storage within a procedure.
> Why bother bothering the system with something which is only used in
> one procedure I said to myself... I have just learnt that with MS Sql
> Server, this is not the case, and that there are locks on some system
> table and temp tables eat up memory and lots of other unfortunate
> things. Can someone give me a 101 on temp table considerations? Or
> rather give me "the good link"?
The main issue against using temp tables involve bloat of some of the system
catalogs, but it's no worse than doing create/drop cycles with standard
tables, and better because they don't suffer as much i/o load.
--
Robert Treat
Build A Brighter LAMP :: Linux Apache {middleware} PostgreSQL
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 6: explain analyze is your friend
