Re: temporary indexes?

On 10/21/2015 01:28 PM, Jonathan Vanasco wrote:
>
> On Oct 21, 2015, at 3:42 PM, Adrian Klaver wrote:
>
>> I misunderstood then. The only thing I can think of is to wrap in a transaction, though that presents other issues with open transactions and/or errors in the transaction.
>
> I just explicitly drop. The convenience of an auto-drop would be a nice backup.
>
> Transactions and table-locking issues are probably why temporary indexes don't exist.
>

On later versions there is CREATE INDEX CONCURRENTLY which alleviates
locking issues at the expense of time. I would think the greater issue
is the time and overhead of building an index for a table of any size
would eat into 'temporary'. Seems if you are joining temporary tables
against permanent tables on a regular basis it would pay just to keep
the indexes on the permanent tables and pay the expense over a longer
period of time.

--
Adrian Klaver
adrian(dot)klaver(at)aklaver(dot)com