| From: | Jeff Boes <jboes(at)nexcerpt(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | pgsql-sql(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Performance on temp table inserts |
| Date: | 2003-05-20 12:37:09 |
| Message-ID: | 1053434229.4973.1.camel@takin.private.nexcerpt.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-sql |
On Tue, 2003-05-20 at 00:51, Tom Lane wrote:
> Jeff Boes <jboes(at)nexcerpt(dot)com> writes:
> > What factors affect the performance of a temp table insert?
>
> PG version would have a lot to do with that, considering how we've
> whacked around the temp-table implementation in the last few releases.
>
> > Hardware, O/S and PostgreSQL versions are all identical.
>
> And they are?
Red Hat Linux release 7.1 (Seawolf)
Kernel 2.4.18-17.7.xbigmem on a 2-processor i686
We have 4 GB of memory and a 53GB partition on a RAID device for the PG
data.
PG version is 7.2.4.
--
Jeff Boes vox 269.226.9550 ext 24
Database Engineer fax 269.349.9076
Nexcerpt, Inc. http://www.nexcerpt.com
...Nexcerpt... Extend your Expertise
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Eric Anderson Vianet SAO | 2003-05-20 14:05:38 | missing chunk number 0 for toast value 32067496 |
| Previous Message | Rado Petrik | 2003-05-20 09:32:05 | Drop CONSTRAINT |