Thread: memory optimization
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 ? Can you suggest me other point of views to be taken into consideration in my case ? TIA, Sabin
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)
Attachment
>> >> 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
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)
Attachment
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