title: What is the comparative speed of temporary tables to physical tables in SQL?
body: <p>I have a script that needs to extract data temporarily to do extra operations on it, but then doesn't need to store it any further after the script has run.  I currently have the data in question in a series of temporary local tables (CREATE TABLE #table), which are then dropped as their use is completed.  I was considering switching to physical tables, treated in the same way (CREATE TABLE table), if there would be an improvement in the speed of the script for it (or other advantages, maybe?).</p>
  
  <p>...So, is there a difference in performance, between temporary tables and physical tables?  From what I'm reading, temporary tables are just physical tables that only the session running the script can look at (cutting down on locking issues).</p>
  
  <p>EDIT: I should point out that I'm talking about physical tables vs. temporary tables.  There is a lot of info available about temporary tables vs. table variables, e.g. <a href="http://sqlnerd.blogspot.com/2005/09/temp-tables-vs-table-variables.html" rel="nofollow noreferrer"><a href="http://sqlnerd.blogspot.com/2005/09/temp-tables-vs-table-variables.html" rel="nofollow noreferrer">http://sqlnerd.blogspot.com/2005/09/temp-tables-vs-table-variables.html</a></a>.</p>