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...)
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 |