Re: Temp table or normal table for performance?

From: Sam Mason <sam(at)samason(dot)me(dot)uk>
To: pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Temp table or normal table for performance?
Date: 2009-08-20 10:59:19
Message-ID: 20090820105919.GW5407@samason.me.uk
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-general

On Wed, Aug 19, 2009 at 08:10:14PM -0400, Stephen Cook wrote:
> I've decided on some type of table storage because basically I'm
> combining information from several different tables (some of which need
> to recursively get other rows) and massaging it and sorting it in ways
> far too convoluted to use a single query with UNION and ORDER BY, and
> then returning the results.

Sounds like you want a temp table to keep things in; you can add an ON
COMMIT DROP which should help keep things tidy. If you're on 8.4 the
WITH clause may make this use case easier.

--
Sam http://samason.me.uk/

In response to

Browse pgsql-general by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Ivan Sergio Borgonovo 2009-08-20 11:00:23 Re: Generating random unique alphanumeric IDs
Previous Message Wolfgang Keller 2009-08-20 09:59:32 Generate LaTeX doc from PostgreSQL (autodoc)?