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

Re: Number of tables

From: "Kevin Grittner" <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov>
To: "Alvaro Herrera" <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, "Greg Stark" <gsstark(at)mit(dot)edu>
Cc: "Craig James" <craig_james(at)emolecules(dot)com>, <fabio(dot)lafarcioli(at)molinoalimonti(dot)com>, <pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Number of tables
Date: 2009-08-24 14:29:58
Message-ID: 4A925D960200002500029FD3@gw.wicourts.gov (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-performance
Greg Stark <gsstark(at)mit(dot)edu> wrote:
 
> Creating new catalog entries for [temp tables] gives up -- what I
> think is the whole point of their design -- their lack of DDL
> overhead.
 
As long as we're brainstorming...  Would it make any sense for temp
tables to be created as in-memory tuplestores up to the point that we
hit the temp_buffers threshold?  Creating and deleting a whole set of
disk files per temp table is part of what makes them so heavy. 
(There's still the issue of dealing with the catalogs, of course....)
 
-Kevin

In response to

pgsql-performance by date

Next:From: Tom LaneDate: 2009-08-24 14:37:04
Subject: Re: postgresql uses Hash-join, i need Nested-loop
Previous:From: Fred JanonDate: 2009-08-24 09:24:59
Subject: How to create a multi-column index with 2 dates using 'gist'?

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