X-Original-To: pgsql-sql@postgresql.org Received: from localhost (unknown [64.117.224.193]) by developer.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BD406924ED2 for ; Tue, 20 May 2003 08:37:24 -0400 (EDT) Received: from developer.postgresql.org ([64.117.224.193]) by localhost (developer.postgresql.org [64.117.224.193:10024]) (amavisd-new) with ESMTP id 20117-01 for ; Tue, 20 May 2003 08:37:12 -0400 (EDT) Received: from yapok.nexcerpt.com (mail.nexcerpt.com [64.147.202.2]) by developer.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 83052924CAC for ; Tue, 20 May 2003 08:37:11 -0400 (EDT) Received: from takin.private.nexcerpt.com (zorro.nexcerpt.com [64.147.202.1]) by yapok.nexcerpt.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h4KCb9Q30428; Tue, 20 May 2003 08:37:09 -0400 Subject: Re: Performance on temp table inserts From: Jeff Boes To: Tom Lane Cc: pgsql-sql@postgresql.org In-Reply-To: <26320.1053406306@sss.pgh.pa.us> References: <26320.1053406306@sss.pgh.pa.us> Content-Type: text/plain Organization: Nexcerpt, Inc. Message-Id: <1053434229.4973.1.camel@takin.private.nexcerpt.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Ximian Evolution 1.2.0 Date: 20 May 2003 08:37:09 -0400 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new X-Archive-Number: 200305/382 X-Sequence-Number: 13547 On Tue, 2003-05-20 at 00:51, Tom Lane wrote: > Jeff Boes writes: > > What factors affect the performance of a temp table insert? > > PG version would have a lot to do with that, considering how we've > whacked around the temp-table implementation in the last few releases. > > > Hardware, O/S and PostgreSQL versions are all identical. > > And they are? Red Hat Linux release 7.1 (Seawolf) Kernel 2.4.18-17.7.xbigmem on a 2-processor i686 We have 4 GB of memory and a 53GB partition on a RAID device for the PG data. PG version is 7.2.4. -- Jeff Boes vox 269.226.9550 ext 24 Database Engineer fax 269.349.9076 Nexcerpt, Inc. http://www.nexcerpt.com ...Nexcerpt... Extend your Expertise