From: | Thom Brown <thombrown(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Joachim Worringen <joachim(dot)worringen(at)iathh(dot)de> |
Cc: | Grzegorz Jaśkiewicz <gryzman(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: performance of temporary vs. regular tables |
Date: | 2010-05-25 09:15:54 |
Message-ID: | AANLkTilBD97tBH3f3-RHvXcYy7t3yCt6-JxAtZ15mVkF@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-performance |
2010/5/25 Joachim Worringen <joachim(dot)worringen(at)iathh(dot)de>:
> Am 25.05.2010 10:49, schrieb Grzegorz Jaśkiewicz:
>>
>> temporary tables are handled pretty much like the regular table. The
>> magic happens on schema level, new schema is setup for connection, so
>> that it can access its own temporary tables.
>> Temporary tables also are not autovacuumed.
>> And that's pretty much the most of the differences.
>
> Thanks. So, the Write-Ahead-Logging (being used or not) does not matter?
>
> And, is there anything like RAM-only tables? I really don't care whether the
> staging data is lost on the rare event of a machine crash, or whether the
> query crashes due to lack of memory (I make sure there's enough w/o paging)
> - I only care about performance here.
>
> Joachim
>
I think can create a tablespace on a ram disk, and create a table there.
Thom
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Joachim Worringen | 2010-05-25 09:32:14 | Re: performance of temporary vs. regular tables |
Previous Message | Joachim Worringen | 2010-05-25 09:00:24 | Re: performance of temporary vs. regular tables |