Received: from localhost (maia-1.hub.org [200.46.204.191])
	by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C6DAC9FA28E
	for <pgsql-performance-postgresql.org@postgresql.org>;
	Mon, 18 Dec 2006 14:01:06 -0400 (AST)
Received: from postgresql.org ([200.46.204.71])
	by localhost (mx1.hub.org [200.46.204.191]) (amavisd-new, port 10024)
	with ESMTP id 54979-08 for
	<pgsql-performance-postgresql.org@postgresql.org>;
	Mon, 18 Dec 2006 14:00:57 -0400 (AST)
X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.4
Received: from sss.pgh.pa.us (sss.pgh.pa.us [66.207.139.130])
	by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 029119F9F08
	for <pgsql-performance@postgresql.org>;
	Mon, 18 Dec 2006 14:00:56 -0400 (AST)
Received: from sss2.sss.pgh.pa.us (tgl@localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by sss.pgh.pa.us (8.13.6/8.13.6) with ESMTP id kBII0tYQ019299;
	Mon, 18 Dec 2006 13:00:55 -0500 (EST)
To: "Steven Flatt" <steven.flatt@gmail.com>
cc: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: Insertion to temp table deteriorating over time 
In-reply-to: <357fa7590612180951q3da4c840l27caa82475444cfb@mail.gmail.com> 
References: <357fa7590612130844q58ef3ca5q31e164f9b006e0fc@mail.gmail.com>
	<25209.1166131396@sss.pgh.pa.us>
	<357fa7590612150821i3eca3f66ge2ced1ee20fa2dac@mail.gmail.com>
	<11651.1166202586@sss.pgh.pa.us>
	<357fa7590612150955g1b9c733duaf000c23d28aa8af@mail.gmail.com>
	<12508.1166206006@sss.pgh.pa.us>
	<357fa7590612151026t4ae033f6w5367cac9d0b67064@mail.gmail.com>
	<13947.1166209788@sss.pgh.pa.us>
	<357fa7590612151121x5f95102fj21a96b1bdc7eb002@mail.gmail.com>
	<20792.1166211026@sss.pgh.pa.us>
	<357fa7590612180951q3da4c840l27caa82475444cfb@mail.gmail.com>
Comments: In-reply-to "Steven Flatt" <steven.flatt@gmail.com>
	message dated "Mon, 18 Dec 2006 12:51:13 -0500"
Date: Mon, 18 Dec 2006 13:00:55 -0500
Message-ID: <19298.1166464855@sss.pgh.pa.us>
From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
X-Virus-Scanned: Maia Mailguard 1.0.1
X-Archive-Number: 200612/466
X-Sequence-Number: 22522

"Steven Flatt" <steven.flatt@gmail.com> writes:
> I can fix this problem by using CREATE TEMP TABLE ... LIKE instead of CREATE
> TEMP TABLE ... AS.

That seems ... um ... bizarre.  Now are you able to put together a
self-contained test case?  Seems like we could have two independent bugs
here: first, why (and how) is the temp table different, and second how
does that result in the observed performance problem.

			regards, tom lane