| From: | Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Hannu Krosing <hannu(at)tm(dot)ee> |
| Cc: | PostgreSQL HACKERS <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Temp tables performance question |
| Date: | 2000-07-13 13:21:05 |
| Message-ID: | 200007131321.JAA16862@candle.pha.pa.us |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
> I have a question about performance issues related to temporary tables.
>
> IIRC temporary tables were implemented as ordinary tables with some
> pre/post-processing to give them unique names so that they would not
> clash with similar-named tables from other sessions.
Right.
>
> Is this all that is done or has some work been done to improve their
> performance further?
>
> I'm mainly interested in INSERT performance as this is the area that is
> much slower than other operations.
So you are not saying that INSERT on temp tables is any slower than
ordinary tables, just that you think there is a way to make temp tables
faster.
My guess is that WAL is going to make INSERT's poor performance a
non-issue.
--
Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us
pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us | (610) 853-3000
+ If your life is a hard drive, | 830 Blythe Avenue
+ Christ can be your backup. | Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania 19026
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Zeugswetter Andreas SB | 2000-07-13 13:57:49 | AW: Temp tables performance question |
| Previous Message | Zeugswetter Andreas SB | 2000-07-13 12:03:10 | AW: Temp tables performance question |