From: | Merlin Moncure <mmoncure(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Leonardo Francalanci <m_lists(at)yahoo(dot)it> |
Cc: | Divakar Singh <dpsmails(at)yahoo(dot)com>, pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Postgres insert performance and storage requirement compared to Oracle |
Date: | 2010-10-26 15:41:59 |
Message-ID: | AANLkTinaW3ZtGJbzgAARG0WfAOJxSPAbdVAZa6X_2dh+@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers pgsql-performance |
On Tue, Oct 26, 2010 at 11:08 AM, Leonardo Francalanci <m_lists(at)yahoo(dot)it> wrote:
>> temp tables are not wal logged or
>> synced. Periodically they can be flushed to a permanent table.
>
>
> What do you mean with "Periodically they can be flushed to
> a permanent table"? Just doing
>
> insert into tabb select * from temptable
>
yup, that's exactly what I mean -- this will give you more uniform
insert performance (your temp table doesn't even need indexes). Every
N records (say 10000) you send to permanent and truncate the temp
table. Obviously, this is more fragile approach so weigh the
pros/cons carefully.
merlin
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2010-10-26 15:52:38 | Re: xlog.c: WALInsertLock vs. WALWriteLock |
Previous Message | Boszormenyi Zoltan | 2010-10-26 15:34:56 | Re: plan time of MASSIVE partitioning ... |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Josh Berkus | 2010-10-26 20:54:07 | Re: CPUs for new databases |
Previous Message | Christian Elmerot | 2010-10-26 15:23:34 | Re: CPUs for new databases |