Re: How to Create Local Temporary Table

From: Serge Rielau <srielau_at_ca.ibm.com>
Date: Thu, 20 Apr 2006 18:02:29 -0400
Message-ID: <4aqenqFubg8gU1@individual.net>

DA Morgan wrote:
> Serge Rielau wrote:
>

>>> Completely different concept and technology.

>

>> Definitely outside of your tolerance, agreed.

>
> Thanks for adding value to the discussion. I'm not sure we'd know
> what to do without a troll on the IBM payroll to liven things up.
>

>>> Temp tables in the products that originated with Ingres (Informix,
>>> Sybase, SQL Server) are used as a workaround for problems related
>>> to locking (lock escalation) and the transaction model.

>

>> Is that so? I thought temp tables are often used to avoid redoing 
>> expensive queries perhaps. But that's just the crazy person in me....

>
> That's just you and DB2. Stick around here and you might learn something.
That's why I asked an honest question. Yet instead of answering the question you gave non technical biased comment. I'd love to learn, perhaps Hans is willing to teach?

>>> We use arrays in Oracle for performance ... not as a workaround.

>

>> And obviously arrays are the only concept that can do what it does 
>> because it's what you know.

>
> If you have something of value to contribute please do. Otherwise do
> consider these quotations:

Daniel, you didn't contribute, you ranted. Give technical answers to technical questions and I just might take you seriously.

> Critics are like eunuchs in a harem; they know how it's done, they've
> seen it done every day, but they're unable to do it themselves
> ~ Brendan Behan

I didn't critique. I asked a question.

> Asking a working writer what he feels about critics is like asking a
> lamp-post what it feels about dogs
> ~ John Osborne
>
> Any fool can criticise - and many of them do.
> ~ Cyril Garbett

Yet, I asked a question, it was you who criticized.
>

>>> Now that Microsoft has attempted to clone the Oracle MVCC model I
>>> expect we will begin to see the use of temp tables disappear. Albeit
>>> slowly since Microsoft customers generally don't read docs.

>

>> I doubt it.

>
> Why? Because SQL Server is now leaving DB2 in the dust by adopting
> MVCC? It is a two horse race now mon ami. You've been relegated to
> the equivalent of COBOL running on AS400 and what's that other platform?
I doubt that local temp tables will go away because of MvCC. That's what I meant.
No comment on DB2. Not the topic. I'm not trolling. I'am asking how using an associative array or varray inside a procedure is so different than using a local temporary table?
"Workaround vs. performance" is NOT a technical answer to my technical question.

Cheers
Serge

-- 
Serge Rielau
DB2 Solutions Development
IBM Toronto Lab

Received on Thu Apr 20 2006 - 17:02:29 CDT