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

Re: performance of temporary vs. regular tables

From: Thom Brown <thombrown(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Joachim Worringen <joachim(dot)worringen(at)iathh(dot)de>
Cc: Grzegorz Jaśkiewicz <gryzman(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: performance of temporary vs. regular tables
Date: 2010-05-25 09:15:54
Message-ID: AANLkTilBD97tBH3f3-RHvXcYy7t3yCt6-JxAtZ15mVkF@mail.gmail.com (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-performance
2010/5/25 Joachim Worringen <joachim(dot)worringen(at)iathh(dot)de>:
> 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
>

I think can create a tablespace on a ram disk, and create a table there.

Thom

In response to

Responses

pgsql-performance by date

Next:From: Joachim WorringenDate: 2010-05-25 09:32:14
Subject: Re: performance of temporary vs. regular tables
Previous:From: Joachim WorringenDate: 2010-05-25 09:00:24
Subject: Re: performance of temporary vs. regular tables

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