| From: | "David G(dot) Johnston" <david(dot)g(dot)johnston(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | 邓彪 <dbyzaa(at)163(dot)com>, "pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: [HACKERS] temporary table vs array performance |
| Date: | 2016-09-26 16:23:52 |
| Message-ID: | CAKFQuwbCm+exABos=jKGMOzm85CDWzsgVd-AcCPkx80dBte=TA@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general pgsql-hackers pgsql-performance |
On Mon, Sep 26, 2016 at 9:18 AM, 邓彪 <dbyzaa(at)163(dot)com> wrote:
> we have to do dml in temp table,the CTE is not fit
>
>
Moving this to -general only...
Please direct all replies to the list.
You are asking for help but not providing any context for what your
requirements are. You are not likely to get good help.
Best case, supply a working function (self contained test case) that does
exactly what you need it to do but uses a temporary table and performs
badly. Lacking that at least attempt to describe your problem and not just
point out that creating temporary tables is expensive.
David J.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Márcio A. Sepp | 2016-09-26 16:59:07 | RES: Chante domain type - Postgres 9.2 |
| Previous Message | Pavel Stehule | 2016-09-26 16:16:31 | Re: [HACKERS] temporary table vs array performance |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tomas Vondra | 2016-09-26 17:16:31 | Re: Speed up Clog Access by increasing CLOG buffers |
| Previous Message | Pavel Stehule | 2016-09-26 16:19:23 | Re: proposal: psql \setfileref |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Jeff Janes | 2016-09-26 16:29:23 | Re: Millions of tables |
| Previous Message | Pavel Stehule | 2016-09-26 16:16:31 | Re: [HACKERS] temporary table vs array performance |