| From: | Joachim Worringen <joachim(dot)worringen(at)iathh(dot)de> |
|---|---|
| To: | Grzegorz Jaśkiewicz <gryzman(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: performance of temporary vs. regular tables |
| Date: | 2010-05-25 09:00:24 |
| Message-ID: | 4BFB91A8.20805@iathh.de |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-performance |
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?
And, is there anything like RAM-only tables? I really don't care whether
the staging data is lost on the rare event of a machine crash, or
whether the query crashes due to lack of memory (I make sure there's
enough w/o paging) - I only care about performance here.
Joachim
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Thom Brown | 2010-05-25 09:15:54 | Re: performance of temporary vs. regular tables |
| Previous Message | Grzegorz Jaśkiewicz | 2010-05-25 08:49:13 | Re: performance of temporary vs. regular tables |