From: | Joachim Worringen <joachim(dot)worringen(at)iathh(dot)de> |
---|---|
To: | pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | performance of temporary vs. regular tables |
Date: | 2010-05-25 07:59:56 |
Message-ID: | 4BFB837C.6010005@iathh.de |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-performance |
Greetings,
in
http://archives.postgresql.org/message-id/1056648218.7041.11.camel@jester,
it is stated that the performance of temporary tables is "the same as a
regular table but without
WAL on the table contents.".
I have a datamining-type application which makes heavy use of temporary
tables to stage (potentially large amounts of) data between different
operations. WAL is write-ahead
To effectively multi-thread this application, I (think I) need to switch
from temporary to regular tables, because
- the concurrent threads need to use different connections, not cursors,
to effectively operate concurrently
- temporary tables are not visible across connections (as they are
across cursors of the same connection)
Thus, I wonder how much this will affect performance. Access on the
temporary table is inserting (millions of) rows once in a single
transaction, potentially update them all once within a single
transaction, then select on them once or more.
Of course, eventually loosing the data in these tables is not a problem
at all. The threads are synchronized above the SQL level.
Thanks for any input on how to maximize performance for this applicaiton.
Joachim
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Grzegorz Jaśkiewicz | 2010-05-25 08:49:13 | Re: performance of temporary vs. regular tables |
Previous Message | David Jarvis | 2010-05-25 06:41:29 | Re: Random Page Cost and Planner |