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

Re: Postgres insert performance and storage requirement compared to Oracle

From: Ivan Voras <ivoras(at)freebsd(dot)org>
To: pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Postgres insert performance and storage requirement compared to Oracle
Date: 2010-10-27 10:13:10
Message-ID: ia8tvj$15r$1@dough.gmane.org (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackerspgsql-performance
On 10/26/10 17:41, Merlin Moncure wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 26, 2010 at 11:08 AM, Leonardo Francalanci <m_lists(at)yahoo(dot)it> wrote:
>>> temp  tables are not wal logged or
>>> synced.  Periodically they can be flushed  to a permanent table.
>>
>>
>> What do you mean with "Periodically they can be flushed  to
>> a permanent table"? Just doing
>>
>> insert into tabb select * from temptable
>>
> 
> yup, that's exactly what I mean -- this will give you more uniform

In effect, when so much data is in temporary storage, a better option
would be to simply configure "synchronous_commit = off" (better in the
sense that the application would not need to be changed). The effects
are almost the same - in both cases transactions might be lost but the
database will survive.



In response to

Responses

pgsql-performance by date

Next:From: Merlin MoncureDate: 2010-10-27 11:05:44
Subject: Re: Re: Postgres insert performance and storage requirement compared to Oracle
Previous:From: Scott MarloweDate: 2010-10-27 08:06:51
Subject: Re: CPUs for new databases

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Merlin MoncureDate: 2010-10-27 11:05:44
Subject: Re: Re: Postgres insert performance and storage requirement compared to Oracle
Previous:From: Simon RiggsDate: 2010-10-27 08:08:53
Subject: Re: max_wal_senders must die

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