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

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: 2010-05-28 11:04:13
Message-ID: (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Lists: pgsql-performance
On 05/26/2010 06:03 PM, Joachim Worringen wrote:
> Am 25.05.2010 12:41, schrieb Andres Freund:
>> On Tuesday 25 May 2010 11:00:24 Joachim Worringen wrote:
>>> Thanks. So, the Write-Ahead-Logging (being used or not) does not matter?
>> It does matter quite significantly in my experience. Both from an io
>> and a cpu
>> overhead perspective.
> O.k., looks as if I have to make my own experience... I'll let you know
> if possible.

As promised, I did a tiny benchmark - basically, 8 empty tables are 
filled with 100k rows each within 8 transactions (somewhat typically for 
my application). The test machine has 4 cores, 64G RAM and RAID1 10k 
drives for data.

# INSERTs into a TEMPORARY table:
[joachim(at)testsrv scaling]$ time pb query -d scaling_qry_1.xml

real    3m18.242s
user    1m59.074s
sys     1m51.001s

# INSERTs into a standard table:
[joachim(at)testsrv scaling]$ time pb query -d scaling_qry_1.xml

real    3m35.090s
user    2m5.295s
sys     2m2.307s

Thus, there is a slight hit of about 10% (which may even be within 
meausrement variations) - your milage will vary.


In response to


pgsql-performance by date

Next:From: Merlin MoncureDate: 2010-05-28 12:22:22
Subject: Re: PostgreSQL Function Language Performance: C vs PL/PGSQL
Previous:From: Cédric VillemainDate: 2010-05-28 08:12:52
Subject: Re: shared_buffers advice

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