Message-ID: <4BFB991E.40407@iathh.de>
Date: Tue, 25 May 2010 11:32:14 +0200
From: Joachim Worringen <joachim.worringen@iathh.de>
Organization: IAT GmbH
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.1; de;
	rv:1.9.1.9) Gecko/20100317 Lightning/1.0b1 Thunderbird/3.0.4
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: performance of temporary vs. regular tables
References: <4BFB837C.6010005@iathh.de>
	<AANLkTik4_exB6U3GlfLMNIgPSk0G3RVQ8fWBTzwekrke@mail.gmail.com>
	<4BFB91A8.20805@iathh.de>
	<AANLkTilBD97tBH3f3-RHvXcYy7t3yCt6-JxAtZ15mVkF@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTilBD97tBH3f3-RHvXcYy7t3yCt6-JxAtZ15mVkF@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

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