2010/1/12 Peter Eisentraut <[email protected]>: > On mån, 2010-01-11 at 19:27 -0500, Andrew Chernow wrote: >> Peter Eisentraut wrote: >> > On mån, 2010-01-11 at 15:02 -0500, Andrew Chernow wrote: >> >> ISTM that the ultimate would be a 'create table (...._) without storage' >> >> (or some'm) and make 'create type' an alternate syntax for SQL >> >> conformance. >> > >> > I don't really understand the purpose of that. >> > >> >> What is the point of CREATE TYPE name AS () syntax? Why would one use create >> type when there is create table? Does it provide additional functionality I >> am >> unaware of or does it exist for comformance reasons? > > Well, that is a very deep question. ;-) I suppose a concise answer > would be that types are for passing data around between functions, and > tables are for storing data on disk.
it should help only for "small" tables. It's looks well, but it can be very slow and very memory expensive for bigger tables. I thing, we need some QUERY->cursor translation mechanism. Memory based solution (with arrays) is better than nothing, but it cannot be for all. Pavel > > > -- > Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list ([email protected]) > To make changes to your subscription: > http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers > -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list ([email protected]) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
