Re: Odd sudden performance degradation related to temp object churn

From: Scott Marlowe <scott(dot)marlowe(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Jerry Sievers <gsievers19(at)comcast(dot)net>
Cc: Jeremy Finzel <finzelj(at)gmail(dot)com>, postgres performance list <pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Odd sudden performance degradation related to temp object churn
Date: 2017-08-15 15:51:24
Message-ID: CAOR=d=21SerRrRzFcUh6yGkVXNyzmT79y7L9pM9tq6Koc+-phg@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-performance

On Mon, Aug 14, 2017 at 4:16 PM, Jerry Sievers <gsievers19(at)comcast(dot)net> wrote:
> Scott Marlowe <scott(dot)marlowe(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
>
>> You do know that temp tables go into the default temp table space,
>> just like sorts, right?
>
> Not so.
>
> This system has no defined temp_tablespace however spillage due to
> sorting/hashing that exceeds work_mem goes to base/pgsql_tmp which we
> have symlinked out to a local SSD drive.

Which is also where temp tables are created.

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-performance by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Jeremy Finzel 2017-08-15 16:00:44 Re: Odd sudden performance degradation related to temp object churn
Previous Message Mariel Cherkassky 2017-08-15 10:06:40 Re: performance problem on big tables