On 6/20/2012 1:01 AM, Eyal Wilde wrote:
> Hi, all.
> this is an obligation from the past:
> the same test, that did ~230 results, is now doing ~700 results. that
> is, BTW even better than mssql.
> the ultimate solution for that problem was to NOT to do "ON COMMIT
> DELETE ROWS" for the temporary tables. instead, we just do "DELETE FROM
> doing "TRUNCATE temp_table1" is defiantly the worst case (~100 results
> in the same test). this is something we knew for a long time, which is
> why we did "ON COMMIT DELETE ROWS", but eventually it turned out as far
> from being the best.
> another minor issue is that when configuring
> temp_tablespace='other_tablespace', the sequences of the temporary
> tables remain on the 'main_tablespace'.
> i hope that will help making postgres even better :)
Did you ever try re-writing some of the temp table usage to use
In response to
pgsql-performance by date
|Next:||From: Craig Ringer||Date: 2012-06-20 14:11:05|
|Subject: Re: index-only scan is missing the INCLUDE feature|
|Previous:||From: Sergey Konoplev||Date: 2012-06-20 13:36:20|
|Subject: Re: Why is a hash join being used?|