| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Jim Nasby <Jim(dot)Nasby(at)BlueTreble(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Jonathan Vanasco <postgres(at)2xlp(dot)com>, Adrian Klaver <adrian(dot)klaver(at)aklaver(dot)com>, PostgreSQL mailing lists <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: temporary indexes? |
| Date: | 2015-10-22 17:36:43 |
| Message-ID: | 50252.1445535403@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general |
Jim Nasby <Jim(dot)Nasby(at)BlueTreble(dot)com> writes:
> On 10/21/15 3:28 PM, Jonathan Vanasco wrote:
>> Transactions and table-locking issues are probably why temporary indexes don't exist.
> I think it's more that no one has proposed it until now. It probably
> wouldn't be terribly hard to add them... the biggest issue would
> probably be changing the buffer management code so it didn't assume that
> a temporary relation went into temporary buffers.
Uh, why would you do that? You'd be throwing away one of the principal
performance advantages of temp tables.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Jim Nasby | 2015-10-22 17:43:42 | Re: ID column naming convention |
| Previous Message | Ken Been | 2015-10-22 17:27:00 | Re: carray_to_bytea? |