| From: | Csaba Nagy <nagy(at)ecircle-ag(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Martijn van Oosterhout <kleptog(at)svana(dot)org> |
| Cc: | PFC <lists(at)peufeu(dot)com>, postgres performance list <pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: [HACKERS] Big IN() clauses etc : feature proposal |
| Date: | 2006-05-09 10:52:06 |
| Message-ID: | 1147171926.14093.242.camel@coppola.muc.ecircle.de |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers pgsql-performance |
[snip]
> It would be interesting to know what the bottleneck is for temp tables
> for you. They do not go via the buffer-cache, they are stored in
[snip]
Is it possible that the temp table creation is the bottleneck ? Would
that write into system catalogs ? If yes, maybe the system catalogs are
not adequately vacuumed/analyzed.
Just a thought.
Cheers,
Csaba.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Max Khon | 2006-05-09 11:19:24 | Re: semaphore usage "port based"? |
| Previous Message | Martijn van Oosterhout | 2006-05-09 10:36:32 | Re: [HACKERS] Big IN() clauses etc : feature proposal |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | PFC | 2006-05-09 11:29:56 | Re: [HACKERS] Big IN() clauses etc : feature proposal |
| Previous Message | Martijn van Oosterhout | 2006-05-09 10:36:32 | Re: [HACKERS] Big IN() clauses etc : feature proposal |