Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: performance of temporary vs. regular tables

From: Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>
To: pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org
Cc: Joachim Worringen <joachim(dot)worringen(at)iathh(dot)de>, Grzegorz Jaśkiewicz <gryzman(at)gmail(dot)com>
Subject: Re: performance of temporary vs. regular tables
Date: 2010-05-25 10:41:58
Message-ID: 201005251241.59605.andres@anarazel.de (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-performance
On Tuesday 25 May 2010 11:00:24 Joachim Worringen wrote:
> Am 25.05.2010 10:49, schrieb Grzegorz Jaśkiewicz:
> > temporary tables are handled pretty much like the regular table. The
> > magic happens on schema level, new schema is setup for connection, so
> > that it can access its own temporary tables.
> > Temporary tables also are not autovacuumed.
> > And that's pretty much the most of the differences.
> 
> Thanks. So, the Write-Ahead-Logging (being used or not) does not matter?
It does matter quite significantly in my experience. Both from an io and a cpu 
overhead perspective.

Andres

In response to

Responses

pgsql-performance by date

Next:From: Tyler HildebrandtDate: 2010-05-25 13:41:00
Subject: Re: Query timing increased from 3s to 55s when used as afunction instead of select
Previous:From: A. KretschmerDate: 2010-05-25 10:30:26
Subject: Re: Query timing increased from 3s to 55s when used as a function instead of select

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group