| From: | Hannu Krosing <hannu(at)tm(dot)ee> |
|---|---|
| To: | Zeugswetter Andreas SB <ZeugswetterA(at)wien(dot)spardat(dot)at> |
| Cc: | PostgreSQL HACKERS <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: AW: Temp tables performance question |
| Date: | 2000-07-13 11:50:22 |
| Message-ID: | 396DACFE.403C0F0A@tm.ee |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Zeugswetter Andreas SB wrote:
>
> > IMHO temporary tables could be made significantly faster than "ordinary"
> > as they are only accessed inside one session and thus have no need for
> > locking or even WAL as they could do with max 2 copies of the same row
> > the other of which can be discarded at end of transaction thereby making
> > it possible to provide much faster insert behaviour.
>
> I am somewhat confused. What does the max 2 copies issue have to do with
> inserts, where you only have one copy of the row anyway ?
You may want to rollback the transaction;
--------------
Hannu
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Zeugswetter Andreas SB | 2000-07-13 12:03:10 | AW: Temp tables performance question |
| Previous Message | Hannu Krosing | 2000-07-13 10:30:22 | Temp tables performance question |