From: Joachim Worringen <joachim.worringen@iathh.de>
To: Grzegorz Jaśkiewicz <gryzman@gmail.com>
Cc: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: performance of temporary vs. regular tables
Date: Tue, 25 May 2010 11:00:24 +0200
Message-ID: <4BFB91A8.20805@iathh.de> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTik4_exB6U3GlfLMNIgPSk0G3RVQ8fWBTzwekrke@mail.gmail.com>
References: <4BFB837C.6010005@iathh.de>
<AANLkTik4_exB6U3GlfLMNIgPSk0G3RVQ8fWBTzwekrke@mail.gmail.com>
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?
And, is there anything like RAM-only tables? I really don't care whether
the staging data is lost on the rare event of a machine crash, or
whether the query crashes due to lack of memory (I make sure there's
enough w/o paging) - I only care about performance here.
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, gryzman@gmail.com
Subject: Re: performance of temporary vs. regular tables
In-Reply-To: <4BFB91A8.20805@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