| From: | Zeugswetter Andreas SB <ZeugswetterA(at)wien(dot)spardat(dot)at> |
|---|---|
| To: | "'Bruce Momjian'" <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>, Hannu Krosing <hannu(at)tm(dot)ee> |
| Cc: | PostgreSQL HACKERS <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | AW: Temp tables performance question |
| Date: | 2000-07-13 13:57:49 |
| Message-ID: | 11C1E6749A55D411A9670001FA687963368010@sdexcsrv1.f000.d0188.sd.spardat.at |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
> So you are not saying that INSERT on temp tables is any slower than
> ordinary tables, just that you think there is a way to make temp tables
> faster.
>
> My guess is that WAL is going to make INSERT's poor performance a
> non-issue.
I do not think that WAL in its first version can speed anything up,
it will rather slow things down.
I think that insert performance should be somewhere near "\copy"
performance which is not so bad now.
Thus it probably could be improved for both regular and temp tables.
Andreas
PS: I am off for a week now
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tim Perdue | 2000-07-13 14:10:35 | Re: Some Improvement |
| Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2000-07-13 13:21:05 | Re: Temp tables performance question |