Search Postgresql Archives

Re: temporary indexes?

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On 10/21/2015 01:28 PM, Jonathan Vanasco wrote:

On Oct 21, 2015, at 3:42 PM, Adrian Klaver wrote:

I misunderstood then. The only thing I can think of is to wrap in a transaction, though that presents other issues with open transactions and/or errors in the transaction.

I just explicitly drop.  The convenience of an auto-drop would be a nice backup.

Transactions and table-locking issues are probably why temporary indexes don't exist.


On later versions there is CREATE INDEX CONCURRENTLY which alleviates locking issues at the expense of time. I would think the greater issue is the time and overhead of building an index for a table of any size would eat into 'temporary'. Seems if you are joining temporary tables against permanent tables on a regular basis it would pay just to keep the indexes on the permanent tables and pay the expense over a longer period of time.

--
Adrian Klaver
adrian.klaver@xxxxxxxxxxx


--
Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general



[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[Index of Archives]     [Postgresql Jobs]     [Postgresql Admin]     [Postgresql Performance]     [Linux Clusters]     [PHP Home]     [PHP on Windows]     [Kernel Newbies]     [PHP Classes]     [PHP Books]     [PHP Databases]     [Postgresql & PHP]     [Yosemite]
  Powered by Linux