| From: | Jim Nasby <Jim(dot)Nasby(at)BlueTreble(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Jonathan Vanasco <postgres(at)2xlp(dot)com>, Adrian Klaver <adrian(dot)klaver(at)aklaver(dot)com> |
| Cc: | PostgreSQL mailing lists <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: temporary indexes? |
| Date: | 2015-10-22 17:12:55 |
| Message-ID: | 56291917.6050903@BlueTreble.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general |
On 10/21/15 3:28 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.
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. Other than that,
presumably they'd work the same as temp tables.
--
Jim Nasby, Data Architect, Blue Treble Consulting, Austin TX
Experts in Analytics, Data Architecture and PostgreSQL
Data in Trouble? Get it in Treble! http://BlueTreble.com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Ken Been | 2015-10-22 17:13:26 | Re: carray_to_bytea? |
| Previous Message | anj patnaik | 2015-10-22 17:03:33 | Re: trouble downloading postgres 9.4 for RHEL 6.x |