From: | Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Hannu Krosing <hannu(at)tm(dot)ee>, PostgreSQL HACKERS <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Temp tables performance question |
Date: | 2000-07-13 16:16:44 |
Message-ID: | 200007131616.MAA24794@candle.pha.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
> It'd be possible to have them go through the "local buffer manager"
> for their entire lives, rather than only for the transaction in which
> they are created, as happens for ordinary tables. This would avoid
> at least some shared-buffer-manipulation overhead. I'm not sure it'd
> buy a whole lot, but it probably wouldn't take much work to make it
> happen, either.
>
> I think it would be folly to try to make them use a different smgr or
> avoid WAL; that'd require propagating differences between ordinary and
> temp tables into way too many places.
Yes, temp table optimization hardly seems worth it.
--
Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us
pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us | (610) 853-3000
+ If your life is a hard drive, | 830 Blythe Avenue
+ Christ can be your backup. | Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania 19026
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2000-07-13 16:17:48 | Re: Questions relating to "modified while in use" messages |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2000-07-13 16:09:17 | Re: Temp tables performance question |