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

Re: performance of temporary vs. regular tables

From: Joachim Worringen <joachim(dot)worringen(at)iathh(dot)de>
To: Grzegorz Jaśkiewicz <gryzman(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: performance of temporary vs. regular tables
Date: 2010-05-25 09:00:24
Message-ID: 4BFB91A8.20805@iathh.de (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-performance
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?

And, is there anything like RAM-only tables? I really don't care whether 
the staging data is lost on the rare event of a machine crash, or 
whether the query crashes due to lack of memory (I make sure there's 
enough w/o paging) - I only care about performance here.

  Joachim


In response to

Responses

pgsql-performance by date

Next:From: Thom BrownDate: 2010-05-25 09:15:54
Subject: Re: performance of temporary vs. regular tables
Previous:From: Grzegorz JaśkiewiczDate: 2010-05-25 08:49:13
Subject: Re: performance of temporary vs. regular tables

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