From: Joachim Worringen <joachim.worringen@iathh.de>
To: Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>
Cc: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org, Grzegorz Jaśkiewicz <gryzman@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: performance of temporary vs. regular tables
Date: Wed, 26 May 2010 18:03:15 +0200
Message-ID: <4BFD4643.9010901@iathh.de> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <201005251241.59605.andres@anarazel.de>
References: <4BFB837C.6010005@iathh.de>
<AANLkTik4_exB6U3GlfLMNIgPSk0G3RVQ8fWBTzwekrke@mail.gmail.com>
<4BFB91A8.20805@iathh.de>
<201005251241.59605.andres@anarazel.de>
Am 25.05.2010 12:41, schrieb Andres Freund:
> On Tuesday 25 May 2010 11:00:24 Joachim Worringen wrote:
>> 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.
O.k., looks as if I have to make my own experience... I'll let you know
if possible.
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, andres@anarazel.de, gryzman@gmail.com
Subject: Re: performance of temporary vs. regular tables
In-Reply-To: <4BFD4643.9010901@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