From: kyle hailey Newsgroups: comp.databases.oracle.server Subject: Re: Temp table question Date: Sat, 03 Mar 2001 06:12:16 -0800 Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com Message-ID: References: <983492427.437049@news.zipcon.net> <3aa02c59@news.iprimus.com.au> <3aa044fe@news.iprimus.com.au> X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 1.8/32.548 trialware MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Complaints-To: newsabuse@supernews.com Lines: 32 Roger, The "normal tables" have a heavy footprint which you know of course so I don't have to point out the details of read conisitency and recoverablity involved with redo logging and transaction management of rollback segments. There is no need for this overhead if the information is disposible and only one user is manipulating the data. As you said a earlier in this thread, >>One of their main benefits is that run like greased lightening This is at odds with your last reponse which suggests using "normal tables" instead of temporay tables. From you response, I get the impression that you missed my point. I'm addressing the functionality of creating information that is only changeable by one user and is disposible thus no need for the transactional complexity of involved in rollback segments or disk write obligation of generating redo. The idea is basically a scratch pad, the contents or access or ownership of which could be given to another session. The complexity involved in this functionality is much simpler that the with "normal tables". Best Kyle Hailey