Re: performance of temporary vs. regular tables

From: Joachim Worringen <joachim(dot)worringen(at)iathh(dot)de>
To: pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: performance of temporary vs. regular tables
Date: 2010-05-25 09:32:14
Message-ID: 4BFB991E.40407@iathh.de
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-performance

Am 25.05.2010 11:15, schrieb Thom Brown:
> 2010/5/25 Joachim Worringen<joachim(dot)worringen(at)iathh(dot)de>:
>> 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
>>
>
> I think can create a tablespace on a ram disk, and create a table there.

True, but I think this makes the database server configuration more
complex (which is acceptable), and may add dependencies between the
server configuration and the SQL statements for the selection of
tablespace name (which would be a problem)?

But I am a tablespace-novice and will look into this "workaround".

thanks, Joachim

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-performance by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Grzegorz Jaśkiewicz 2010-05-25 09:38:02 Re: performance of temporary vs. regular tables
Previous Message Thom Brown 2010-05-25 09:15:54 Re: performance of temporary vs. regular tables