| From: | Decibel! <decibel(at)decibel(dot)org> | 
|---|---|
| To: | Sabin Coanda <sabin(dot)coanda(at)deuromedia(dot)ro> | 
| Cc: | pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org | 
| Subject: | Re: memory optimization | 
| Date: | 2007-08-15 18:15:00 | 
| Message-ID: | 20070815181500.GN54135@nasby.net | 
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email | 
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general | 
On Wed, Aug 15, 2007 at 10:21:31AM +0300, Sabin Coanda wrote:
> Hi there,
> 
> I have a procedure which uses temporary objects (table and sequence). I 
> tried to optimize it, using common variables (array and long varchar) 
> instead. I didn't found any difference in performance, but I'd like to 
> choose the best option from other points of view. One of them is the memory.
> 
> 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.
-- 
Decibel!, aka Jim Nasby                        decibel(at)decibel(dot)org
EnterpriseDB      http://enterprisedb.com      512.569.9461 (cell)
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Decibel! | 2007-08-15 18:24:24 | Re: Interpreting statistics collector output | 
| Previous Message | D. Dante Lorenso | 2007-08-15 18:09:12 | SELECT ... FOR UPDATE performance costs? alternatives? |