Re: [PERFORM] Big IN() clauses etc : feature proposal

From: PFC <lists(at)peufeu(dot)com>
To: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: [PERFORM] Big IN() clauses etc : feature proposal
Date: 2006-05-10 19:27:21
Message-ID: op.s9cobvzhcigqcu@apollo13
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers pgsql-performance

> Have you tried getting a profile of what exactly PostgreSQL is doing
> that takes so long when creating a temp table?

Nope, I'm not proficient in the use of these tools (I stopped using C
some time ago).

> BTW, I suspect catalogs might be the answer,

Probably, because :

- Temp tables don't use fsync (I hope)
- Catalogs do
- fsync=off makes COMMIT fast
- fsync=on makes COMMIT slow
- fsync=on and using ANALYZE makes COMMIT slower (more updates to the
catalogs I guess)

> which is why Oracle has you
> define a temp table once (which does all the work of putting it in the
> catalog) and then you just use it accordingly in each individual
> session.

Interesting (except for the ANALYZE bit...)

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message PFC 2006-05-10 19:35:39 Re: [HACKERS] Big IN() clauses etc : feature proposal
Previous Message Jim C. Nasby 2006-05-10 19:24:01 Re: [HACKERS] Big IN() clauses etc : feature proposal

Browse pgsql-performance by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message PFC 2006-05-10 19:35:39 Re: [HACKERS] Big IN() clauses etc : feature proposal
Previous Message Jim C. Nasby 2006-05-10 19:24:01 Re: [HACKERS] Big IN() clauses etc : feature proposal