Search Postgresql Archives

Re: Temp table or normal table for performance?

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

 



On 2009-08-19, Stephen Cook <sclists@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> Let's say I have a function that needs to collect some data from various 
> tables and process and sort them to be returned to the user.

plpgsql functions don't play well with temp tables IME.
there are work-arounds and they are ugly. if you caus use a different
language it could work.

> In general, would it be better to create a temporary table in that 
> function, do the work and sorting there, and return it... or keep a 
> permanent table for pretty much the same thing, but add a "user session" 
> field and return the relevant rows from that and then delete them?

> Sorry this is vague, I know it most likely depends on the workload and 
> such, but I'm just putting this together now. I could go either way, and 
> also switch it up in the future if necessary. Is there a rule of thumb 
> on this one?  I'm a bit biased against temporary tables, but then again 
> if the normal table gets a lot of action it might not be the optimal choice.

temp tables are usually worth the effort.

-- 
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