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: | 2007-08-16 10:12:38 |
Message-ID: | 20070816101238.GB54135@nasby.net |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general |
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(at)decibel(dot)org
EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com 512.569.9461 (cell)
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Decibel! | 2007-08-16 10:19:16 | Re: Yet Another COUNT(*)...WHERE...question |
Previous Message | Rainer Bauer | 2007-08-16 10:12:03 | Re: Yet Another COUNT(*)...WHERE...question |