| From: | Ivan Voras <ivoras(at)freebsd(dot)org> |
|---|---|
| To: | pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Postgres insert performance and storage requirement compared to Oracle |
| Date: | 2010-10-27 10:13:10 |
| Message-ID: | ia8tvj$15r$1@dough.gmane.org |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers pgsql-performance |
On 10/26/10 17:41, Merlin Moncure wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 26, 2010 at 11:08 AM, Leonardo Francalanci <m_lists(at)yahoo(dot)it> wrote:
>>> temp tables are not wal logged or
>>> synced. Periodically they can be flushed to a permanent table.
>>
>>
>> What do you mean with "Periodically they can be flushed to
>> a permanent table"? Just doing
>>
>> insert into tabb select * from temptable
>>
>
> yup, that's exactly what I mean -- this will give you more uniform
In effect, when so much data is in temporary storage, a better option
would be to simply configure "synchronous_commit = off" (better in the
sense that the application would not need to be changed). The effects
are almost the same - in both cases transactions might be lost but the
database will survive.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Merlin Moncure | 2010-10-27 11:05:44 | Re: Re: Postgres insert performance and storage requirement compared to Oracle |
| Previous Message | Simon Riggs | 2010-10-27 08:08:53 | Re: max_wal_senders must die |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Merlin Moncure | 2010-10-27 11:05:44 | Re: Re: Postgres insert performance and storage requirement compared to Oracle |
| Previous Message | Scott Marlowe | 2010-10-27 08:06:51 | Re: CPUs for new databases |