Zeugswetter Andreas SB wrote:
> 
> > IMHO temporary tables could be made significantly faster than "ordinary"
> > as they are only accessed inside one session and thus have no need for
> > locking or even WAL as they could do with max 2 copies of the same row
> > the other of which can be discarded at end of transaction thereby making
> > it possible to provide much faster insert behaviour.
> 
> I am somewhat confused. What does the max 2 copies issue have to do with
> inserts, where you only have one copy of the row anyway ?

You may want to rollback the transaction;

--------------
Hannu

Thu, 13 Jul 2000 14:50:22 +0300
Hannu Krosing <hannu@tm.ee>
Re: AW: Temp tables performance question

> IMHO temporary tables could be made significantly faster than "ordinary" 
> as they are only accessed inside one session and thus have no need for 
> locking or even WAL as they could do with max 2 copies of the same row 
> the other of which can be discarded at end of transaction thereby making 
> it possible to provide much faster insert behaviour.

I am somewhat confused. What does the max 2 copies issue have to do with 
inserts, where you only have one copy of the row anyway ?

Andreas

Thu, 13 Jul 2000 14:03:10 +0200
Zeugswetter Andreas SB <ZeugswetterA@wien.spardat.at>
AW: Temp tables performance question