From: Joachim Worringen <joachim.worringen@iathh.de>
To: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
Subject: performance of temporary vs. regular tables
Date: Tue, 25 May 2010 09:59:56 +0200
Message-ID: <4BFB837C.6010005@iathh.de> (raw)
Greetings,
in
http://archives.postgresql.org/message-id/1056648218.7041.11.camel@jester,
it is stated that the performance of temporary tables is "the same as a
regular table but without
WAL on the table contents.".
I have a datamining-type application which makes heavy use of temporary
tables to stage (potentially large amounts of) data between different
operations. WAL is write-ahead
To effectively multi-thread this application, I (think I) need to switch
from temporary to regular tables, because
- the concurrent threads need to use different connections, not cursors,
to effectively operate concurrently
- temporary tables are not visible across connections (as they are
across cursors of the same connection)
Thus, I wonder how much this will affect performance. Access on the
temporary table is inserting (millions of) rows once in a single
transaction, potentially update them all once within a single
transaction, then select on them once or more.
Of course, eventually loosing the data in these tables is not a problem
at all. The threads are synchronized above the SQL level.
Thanks for any input on how to maximize performance for this applicaiton.
Joachim
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: joachim.worringen@iathh.de
Subject: Re: performance of temporary vs. regular tables
In-Reply-To: <4BFB837C.6010005@iathh.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