In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Sabin Coanda <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[...]
% So, what is better from the postgres memory point of view: to use temporary
% objects, or to use common variables ?
Temp tables can cause serious bloat in some of the system catalog tables.
--
Patrick TJ McPhee
Nor
On Thu, Aug 16, 2007 at 09:17:37AM +0300, Sabin Coanda wrote:
> >>
> >> So, what is better from the postgres memory point of view: to use
> >> temporary
> >> objects, or to use common variables ?
> >
> >A temp table might take *slightly* more room than variables...
> >
> >> Can you suggest me othe
>>
>> So, what is better from the postgres memory point of view: to use
>> temporary
>> objects, or to use common variables ?
>
>A temp table might take *slightly* more room than variables...
>
>> Can you suggest me other point of views to be taken into consideration in
>> my
>> case ?
>
>Code ma
On Wed, Aug 15, 2007 at 10:21:31AM +0300, Sabin Coanda wrote:
> Hi there,
>
> I have a procedure which uses temporary objects (table and sequence). I
> tried to optimize it, using common variables (array and long varchar)
> instead. I didn't found any difference in performance, but I'd like to
Hi there,
I have a procedure which uses temporary objects (table and sequence). I
tried to optimize it, using common variables (array and long varchar)
instead. I didn't found any difference in performance, but I'd like to
choose the best option from other points of view. One of them is the mem
