| From: | Asim Praveen <apraveen(at)pivotal(dot)io> |
|---|---|
| To: | PostgreSQL mailing lists <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Cc: | David Kimura <dkimura(at)pivotal(dot)io> |
| Subject: | Keeping temporary tables in shared buffers |
| Date: | 2018-05-25 01:03:17 |
| Message-ID: | CANXE4Te_aw0CyO_i4J51fUChZhG4s+PmLPjQWckw5OrX1Tf3yA@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Hello
We are evaluating the use of shared buffers for temporary tables. The
advantage being queries involving temporary tables can make use of parallel
workers.
Challenges:
1. We lose the performance benefit of local buffers.
2. Additional complexity in shared buffer manager - BufferTag needs to
include backend ID to distinguish 'my' temp buffers from non-temp or
'others' temp buffers.
3. Checkpointer needs to skip them for fsync but bgwriter needs to write
them out.
Has someone already thought about this? Any workloads that might benefit
from this idea?
Asim and David
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Kyotaro HORIGUCHI | 2018-05-25 01:05:14 | Re: A Japanese-unfriendy error message contruction |
| Previous Message | Justin Pryzby | 2018-05-25 01:00:25 | add default parallel query to v10 release notes? (Re: [PERFORM] performance drop after upgrade (9.6 > 10)) |