From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Phil Endecott <spam_from_postgresql_general(at)chezphil(dot)org> |
Cc: | pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Temporary tables and disk activity |
Date: | 2004-12-13 19:04:11 |
Message-ID: | 27117.1102964651@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general |
Phil Endecott <spam_from_postgresql_general(at)chezphil(dot)org> writes:
> Does this make sense? I imagine that the temporary table is being added
> to these tables and then removed again.
Yes, a temp table has the same catalog infrastructure as a regular
table, so creation and deletion of a temp table will cause some activity
in those catalogs. I thought you were concerned about the data within
the temp table, though.
> I do have quite a large number of tables in the database; I have one
> schema per user and of the order of 20 tables per user and 200 users. I
> can imagine that in a system with fewer tables this would be
> insignificant, yet in my case it seems to be writing of the order of a
> megabyte in each 5-second update.
That seems like a lot. How often do you create/delete temp tables?
> I should mention that I ANALYSE the temporary table after creating it
> and before using it for anything; I'm not sure if this does any good
> but I put it in as it "couldn't do any harm".
This is a good idea (if you analyze after filling the table) ... but it
will cause catalog traffic too, because again the pg_statistic rows go
into the regular pg_statistic catalog.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Bruno Wolff III | 2004-12-13 19:08:39 | Re: table with sort_key without gaps |
Previous Message | Bruno Wolff III | 2004-12-13 18:59:05 | Re: partial index on boolean, problem with v8.0.0rc1 |