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

From: Mitchell Skinner <mitch(at)arctur(dot)us>
To: PFC <lists(at)peufeu(dot)com>
Cc: pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Big IN() clauses etc : feature proposal
Date: 2006-05-09 15:58:05
Message-ID: 1147190285.32304.43.camel@firebolt
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers pgsql-performance

On Tue, 2006-05-09 at 13:29 +0200, PFC wrote:
> 0.101 ms BEGIN
> 1.451 ms CREATE TEMPORARY TABLE tmp ( a INTEGER NOT NULL, b INTEGER NOT
> NULL, c TIMESTAMP NOT NULL, d INTEGER NOT NULL ) ON COMMIT DROP
> 0.450 ms INSERT INTO tmp SELECT * FROM bookmarks ORDER BY annonce_id DESC
> LIMIT 20
> 0.443 ms ANALYZE tmp
> 0.365 ms SELECT * FROM tmp
> 0.310 ms DROP TABLE tmp
> 32.918 ms COMMIT

Does the time for commit change much if you leave out the analyze?

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message PFC 2006-05-09 16:29:31 Re: [HACKERS] Big IN() clauses etc : feature proposal
Previous Message Greg Stark 2006-05-09 15:00:29 Re: [HACKERS] Big IN() clauses etc : feature proposal

Browse pgsql-performance by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message PFC 2006-05-09 16:29:31 Re: [HACKERS] Big IN() clauses etc : feature proposal
Previous Message Joshua D. Drake 2006-05-09 15:51:39 Re: Arguments Pro/Contra Software Raid