On Thu, Aug 16, 2007 at 09:17:37AM +0300, Sabin Coanda wrote: > >> > >> So, what is better from the postgres memory point of view: to use > >> temporary > >> objects, or to use common variables ? > > > >A temp table might take *slightly* more room than variables... > > > >> Can you suggest me other point of views to be taken into consideration in > >> my > >> case ? > > > >Code maintenance. I can't think of anyway to replace a temp table with > >variables that isn't a complete nightmare. > > With some conversion procedures that is even easiest to do it ;) Sorry, I'm not quite grokking what you're saying there... I guess maybe the original question wasn't clear enough... when temp tables were mentioned I assumed that you were dealing with multiple rows, but maybe that's not the case. -- Decibel!, aka Jim Nasby decibel@xxxxxxxxxxx EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com 512.569.9461 (cell)
Attachment:
pgp0yF0TDMIFL.pgp
Description: PGP signature
