Re: RAM-only temporary tables

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: "Kevin Grittner" <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov>
Cc: "Alvaro Herrera" <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: RAM-only temporary tables
Date: 2008-11-06 18:47:21
Message-ID: 5922.1225997241@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

"Kevin Grittner" <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov> writes:
> That would make the file creation and unlink just under half the load.

Worst possible case :-( ... means that we wouldn't get much improvement
without addressing both aspects.

It strikes me however that this does put some urgency into the question
of how much per-relation FSM is going to cost us. For short-lived temp
tables the FSM is never going to have any usefulness at all, but in the
current HEAD code it'll double the create/unlink load.

Heikki, would it be reasonable to fix things so that a nonexistent FSM
fork is semantically the same as an empty one, and not create FSM until
there's actually something to put in it?

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2008-11-06 18:50:09 Re: per-database locale: createdb switches
Previous Message Teodor Sigaev 2008-11-06 18:45:08 Re: per-database locale: createdb switches