From: Joachim Worringen <joachim.worringen@iathh.de>
To: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: performance of temporary vs. regular tables
Date: Tue, 25 May 2010 11:32:14 +0200
Message-ID: <4BFB991E.40407@iathh.de> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTilBD97tBH3f3-RHvXcYy7t3yCt6-JxAtZ15mVkF@mail.gmail.com>
References: <4BFB837C.6010005@iathh.de>
<AANLkTik4_exB6U3GlfLMNIgPSk0G3RVQ8fWBTzwekrke@mail.gmail.com>
<4BFB91A8.20805@iathh.de>
<AANLkTilBD97tBH3f3-RHvXcYy7t3yCt6-JxAtZ15mVkF@mail.gmail.com>
Am 25.05.2010 11:15, schrieb Thom Brown:
> 2010/5/25 Joachim Worringen<joachim.worringen@iathh.de>:
>> 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
>>
>
> I think can create a tablespace on a ram disk, and create a table there.
True, but I think this makes the database server configuration more
complex (which is acceptable), and may add dependencies between the
server configuration and the SQL statements for the selection of
tablespace name (which would be a problem)?
But I am a tablespace-novice and will look into this "workaround".
thanks, 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: <4BFB991E.40407@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