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)
