| From: | Andy Colson <andy(at)squeakycode(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | Ivan Voras <ivoras(at)freebsd(dot)org> |
| Cc: | pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Best practice to get performance |
| Date: | 2010-11-19 22:14:50 |
| Message-ID: | 4CE6F6DA.2030409@squeakycode.net |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general |
On 11/19/2010 4:04 PM, Ivan Voras wrote:
> On 11/19/10 15:49, Andy Colson wrote:
>
>> unlogged will only help insert/update performance. Lookup tables sound
>> readonly for a majority of time. (I'm assuming lots of reads and every
>> once and a while updates). I doubt that unlogged tables would speed up
>> lookup tables.
>
> Are FreeBSD's temp tables still storage-backed? (i.e. are there
> memory-backed temp tables)?
>
>
>
Sorry, I'm not sure what you are asking. Not sure what this has to do
with FreeBSD, or its temp tables.
Unless: s/freebsd/postgres/i
Ah, yes, Postgres temp tables still make it to disk eventually. They
are not WAL logged (but if they get really big they spill to disk).
There are no memory only tables, no. But PG will cache the heck out of
all tables, so you get the best of both worlds.
-Andy
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2010-11-19 22:45:33 | Re: Upgrading 8.2 to 8.4: pg_restore: did not find magic string in file header\n |
| Previous Message | Ivan Voras | 2010-11-19 22:04:25 | Re: Best practice to get performance |