Re: RAM-only temporary tables

From: "Kevin Grittner" <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov>
To: "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: "Alvaro Herrera" <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: RAM-only temporary tables
Date: 2008-11-06 16:38:37
Message-ID: 4912C92D.EE98.0025.0@wicourts.gov
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

>>> Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> I think a large fraction of the writes you're measuring are coming
from
> the file create/unlink operations. It would certainly be important
to
> identify where the bulk of the cost *really* is before we start
> expending effort on a solution.

Any ideas on a good way to gather that information?

Given the temp_buffers space, would it make sense to defer the
creation of the actual file until there is actually a need to spill
data to the disk?

-Kevin

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Jonah H. Harris 2008-11-06 16:50:59 Re: [PATCH] EnableDisableTrigger Cleanup & Questions
Previous Message Michal szymanski 2008-11-06 16:38:12 BUG #4516: FOUND variable does not work after RETURN QUERY