From: | Greg Stark <stark(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Kevin Grittner <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: idea: global temp tables |
Date: | 2009-04-29 20:39:03 |
Message-ID: | 4136ffa0904291339sb5c0a41y3ba4c11bffda2246@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, Apr 29, 2009 at 8:59 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>
> This is all based on utterly-unproven assumptions about relative costs.
> In particular, ISTM an additional network round trip or two associated
> with testing for/creating a temp table could easily swamp any costs
> associated with catalog entry creation. Even if it doesn't,
> creating/deleting a few dozen rows in the system catalogs shouldn't
> really be something that autovacuum can't deal with.
I don't see why it's limited to a few dozen rows. Moderately busy web
sites these days count their traffic in hundreds of page views per
second.
> If it were,
> we'd be hearing a lot more complaints about the *existing* temp table
> feature being unusable. (And yes, I know it's come up once or twice,
> but not all that often.)
Well my point is that currently you have to type CREATE TEMPORARY
TABLE somewhere which at least gives you a clue that maybe you're
doing something significant.
--
greg
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Kevin Grittner | 2009-04-29 20:47:07 | Re: idea: global temp tables |
Previous Message | Kevin Grittner | 2009-04-29 20:08:16 | Re: idea: global temp tables |