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

Re: Number of tables

From: "Kevin Grittner" <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov>
To: "Alvaro Herrera" <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, "Greg Stark" <gsstark(at)mit(dot)edu>
Cc: "Craig James" <craig_james(at)emolecules(dot)com>, <fabio(dot)lafarcioli(at)molinoalimonti(dot)com>, <pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Number of tables
Date: 2009-08-24 14:29:58
Message-ID: (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Lists: pgsql-performance
Greg Stark <gsstark(at)mit(dot)edu> wrote:
> Creating new catalog entries for [temp tables] gives up -- what I
> think is the whole point of their design -- their lack of DDL
> overhead.
As long as we're brainstorming...  Would it make any sense for temp
tables to be created as in-memory tuplestores up to the point that we
hit the temp_buffers threshold?  Creating and deleting a whole set of
disk files per temp table is part of what makes them so heavy. 
(There's still the issue of dealing with the catalogs, of course....)

In response to

pgsql-performance by date

Next:From: Tom LaneDate: 2009-08-24 14:37:04
Subject: Re: postgresql uses Hash-join, i need Nested-loop
Previous:From: Fred JanonDate: 2009-08-24 09:24:59
Subject: How to create a multi-column index with 2 dates using 'gist'?

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2017 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group