memory optimization

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
choose the best option from other points of view. One of them is the memory.

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 maintenance. I can't think of anyway to replace a temp table with
variables that isn't a complete nightmare.
--
Decibel!, aka Jim Nasby decibel@decibel.org
EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com 512.569.9461 (cell)

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 maintenance. I can't think of anyway to replace a temp table with
variables that isn't a complete nightmare.

With some conversion procedures that is even easiest to do it ;)

Regards,
Sabin

In article <f9u9hg$2hp7$1@news.hub.org>,
Sabin Coanda <sabin.coanda@deuromedia.ro> 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
North York Canada
ptjm@interlog.com

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 other point of views to be taken into consideration in
my
case ?

Code maintenance. I can't think of anyway to replace a temp table with
variables that isn't a complete nightmare.

With some conversion procedures that is even easiest to do it ;)

Sorry, I'm not quite grokking what you're saying there...

I guess maybe the original question wasn't clear enough... when temp
tables were mentioned I assumed that you were dealing with multiple
rows, but maybe that's not the case.
--
Decibel!, aka Jim Nasby decibel@decibel.org
EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com 512.569.9461 (cell)