From: Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>
To: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
Cc: Joachim Worringen <joachim.worringen@iathh.de>
Cc: Grzegorz Jaśkiewicz <gryzman@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: performance of temporary vs. regular tables
Date: Tue, 25 May 2010 12:41:58 +0200
Message-ID: <201005251241.59605.andres@anarazel.de> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <4BFB91A8.20805@iathh.de>
References: <4BFB837C.6010005@iathh.de>
<AANLkTik4_exB6U3GlfLMNIgPSk0G3RVQ8fWBTzwekrke@mail.gmail.com>
<4BFB91A8.20805@iathh.de>
On Tuesday 25 May 2010 11:00:24 Joachim Worringen wrote:
> Am 25.05.2010 10:49, schrieb Grzegorz Jaśkiewicz:
> > temporary tables are handled pretty much like the regular table. The
> > magic happens on schema level, new schema is setup for connection, so
> > that it can access its own temporary tables.
> > Temporary tables also are not autovacuumed.
> > And that's pretty much the most of the differences.
>
> 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.
Andres
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Reply to all the recipients using the --to and --cc options:
reply via email
To: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
Cc: andres@anarazel.de, joachim.worringen@iathh.de, gryzman@gmail.com
Subject: Re: performance of temporary vs. regular tables
In-Reply-To: <201005251241.59605.andres@anarazel.de>
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
This inbox is served by DDX for PostgreSQL; see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox