Re: Temp tables performance question

> 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