| From: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
|---|---|
| To: | pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Cc: | Joachim Worringen <joachim(dot)worringen(at)iathh(dot)de>, Grzegorz Jaśkiewicz <gryzman(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: performance of temporary vs. regular tables |
| Date: | 2010-05-25 10:41:58 |
| Message-ID: | 201005251241.59605.andres@anarazel.de |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-performance |
On Tuesday 25 May 2010 11:00:24 Joachim Worringen wrote:
> 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?
It does matter quite significantly in my experience. Both from an io and a cpu
overhead perspective.
Andres
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tyler Hildebrandt | 2010-05-25 13:41:00 | Re: Query timing increased from 3s to 55s when used as a function instead of select |
| Previous Message | A. Kretschmer | 2010-05-25 10:30:26 | Re: Query timing increased from 3s to 55s when used as a function instead of select |