| 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: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | 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...)
| 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 |
| 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 |