| From: | Martijn van Oosterhout <kleptog(at)svana(dot)org> |
|---|---|
| To: | PFC <lists(at)peufeu(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Christian Kratzer <ck(at)cksoft(dot)de>, pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: [HACKERS] Big IN() clauses etc : feature proposal |
| Date: | 2006-05-09 10:36:32 |
| Message-ID: | 20060509103632.GD29652@svana.org |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers pgsql-performance |
On Tue, May 09, 2006 at 12:10:37PM +0200, PFC wrote:
> Yes, but in this case temp tables add too much overhead. I wish
> there were RAM based temp tables like in mysql. However I guess the
> current temp table slowness comes from the need to mark their existence in
> the system catalogs or something. That's why I proposed using cursors...
It would be interesting to know what the bottleneck is for temp tables
for you. They do not go via the buffer-cache, they are stored in
private memory in the backend, they are not xlogged. Nor flushed to
disk on backend exit. They're about as close to in-memory tables as
you're going to get...
Have a nice day,
--
Martijn van Oosterhout <kleptog(at)svana(dot)org> http://svana.org/kleptog/
> From each according to his ability. To each according to his ability to litigate.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Csaba Nagy | 2006-05-09 10:52:06 | Re: [HACKERS] Big IN() clauses etc : feature proposal |
| Previous Message | PFC | 2006-05-09 10:10:37 | Re: [HACKERS] Big IN() clauses etc : feature proposal |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Csaba Nagy | 2006-05-09 10:52:06 | Re: [HACKERS] Big IN() clauses etc : feature proposal |
| Previous Message | Hannes Dorbath | 2006-05-09 10:24:30 | Re: Arguments Pro/Contra Software Raid |