| From: | "Kevin Grittner" <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Greg Stark" <stark(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | "Alvaro Herrera" <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, "Pavel Stehule" <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com>, "PostgreSQL Hackers" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: idea: global temp tables |
| Date: | 2009-04-29 20:47:07 |
| Message-ID: | 49F8767B.EE98.0025.0@wicourts.gov |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Greg Stark <stark(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> wrote:
>> creating/deleting a few dozen rows in the system catalogs shouldn't
>> really be something that autovacuum can't deal with.
>
> I don't see why it's limited to a few dozen rows. Moderately busy
> web sites these days count their traffic in hundreds of page views
> per second.
Sure. We're there. And many of those hits run ten to twenty queries.
We'd be insane to get a new connection for each one rather than use a
connection pool; and this overhead only occurs once per referenced
table per connection.
-Kevin
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | David Fetter | 2009-04-29 21:48:57 | Re: Throw some low-level C scutwork at me |
| Previous Message | Greg Stark | 2009-04-29 20:39:03 | Re: idea: global temp tables |